Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/719/2016

Rajasthan Housing Board through DeputyHousing Commissoner II - Complainant(s)

Versus

Banwari Lal Soni S/O Knkanhiya Lal Soni - Opp.Party(s)

P.S. Tomar

23 Nov 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 719 /2016

 

Rajasthan Housing Board, Bhagwan Das Marg, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur through Dy.Housing Commissioner Circle II & ors.

Vs.

Banwarilal Soni s/o Kanhiyalal Soni r/o village Sikandara Distt. Dausa.

 

 

Date of Order 23.11.2017

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

 

Mr. P.S.Tomar counsel for the appellants

Mr. D.M.Mathur counsel for the respondent

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

2

 

This appeal has been filed against the order passed by the learned DCF Jaipur 3^rd dated 9.5.2016 whereby the Forum below has allowed re-payment of registration fee alongwith 15% interest and Rs. 50,000/- as compensation and cost of proceedings.

 

The contention of the appellant is that complainant respondent has submitted Anx. 9 for allotment of LIG house which could not be further dealt with and the Forum below has allowed refund of registration fees but excessive rate of interest is allowed and further more when interest is allowed no compensation should have been ordered.

 

Per contra the contention of the respondent is that no infirmity is shown hence no interference is needed.

 

Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment as well as original record of the case.

 

There is no dispute about the fact that the complainant was registered on 5.9.1988 but inspite of the notice he has not

 

3

 

deposited the requisite amount and allotment was cancelled. Thereafter videAnx. 9 he again applied and matter could not be dealt with by the appellants and it is also admitted that registration fee was not returned which has rightly been ordered by the Forum below to be paid but the only contention of the appellant is that 15% interest is excessive and agreed rate of interest between the parties is only 6% hence, it should have been reduced to 6%.

 

The appellant has relied upon 2010 (3) CPJ 274 Rakesh Jhunjhunwala Vs. Rajasthan Housing Board and judgment passed by this Commission in First Appeal No. 258/2016 Rajasthan Housing Board Vs. Somnath Makhar.

 

In view of the fact that money was retained by the appellant the payment of interest is justified but looking at the banking rates it is appropriate to reduce it to 9%. Further it may be noted that inspite of cancellation of the allotment, money was not refunded which is deficiency on the part of the appellant but facts remain the same that dispute is in regard to Rs. 7500/- only hence, the amount of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation seems to be exorbitant and it is reduced to

4

 

Rs.5000/- as mental agony and Rs. 5000/- as cost of proceedings.

 

In view of the above the appeal is partially allowed and the respondent is entitled for 9% interest on the refund of the amount from the date of deposit and the respondent is also entitled to get Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and cost of proceedings instead of Rs. 50,000/- awarded by the Forum below.

 

(Nisha Gupta) President

nm