Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/501/2015

Rajasthan Housign Board Through Secreatry - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bhagwan Das Agarwal s/o Ram Gopal Agarwal - Opp.Party(s)

V.P.Mathur

06 Oct 2015

ORDER

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

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 501 /2015

 

Rajasthan Housing Board through Secretary, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur

Vs.

Bhagwan Dan Agarwal s/o Ramgopal Agarwal r/o 167 Attar Bhawan, Saunthali walon ka Rasta,Jaipur.

 

FIRST APPEAL NO:534/2015

 

Bhagwan Dan Agarwal s/o Ramgopal Agarwal r/o 167 Attar Bhawan, Saunthali walon ka Rasta,Jaipur.

Vs.

Rajasthan Housing Board through Secretary, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur

 

Date of Order 6.10.2015

 

Before:

 

Hon'ble Mr.Vinay Kumar Chawla-Presiding Member

Mr.Liyakat Ali- Member

2

 

Mr.V.P.Mathur counsel for the Housing Board

Mr.R.K.Sharma counsel for the complainant Bhagwan Dan

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION

 

These two appeals have been filed against the judgment of learned DCF Jaipur 2^nd dated 20.2.2015 by which the complaint was allowed.

 

The complainant had applied for allotment of a house with the opposite party in the year 1997. He was allotted a house on 8.2.2008 in which he was charged cost of land for standard area 189 sq.mt. @ Rs.4420/- per sq.mt. and extra area of 156.15 sq.mt. @ Rs.6630/- per sq.mt. He challenged this on the ground that he cannot be charged the cost on the prevailing rate on the date of possession instead he should be charged when he had applied for the house. The complainant has been engaged in the protracted litigations for all these years. His matter also remained pending in the Hon'ble High Court for many years and now he has withdrawn the writ petition from there. In this complaint the opposite party had appeared before the DCF but failed to file the written statement and their reply was closed on

4.5.2011. After that the advocate for the opposite party

3

 

participated in proceedings but absented himself on the date of argument.

 

The learned counsel for the opposite party has submitted that due to negligence of the advocate appointed before the learned DCF and the apathy of the concerned officers the matter could not be properly prosecuted before the learned DCF. He has submitted that the higher authorities had taken it seriously and necessary action against the concerned is being initiated. He further submits that in this complaint the complainant has raised the dispute regarding costing of the land which is not a' consumer dispute' as has been held in many judgments of the Hon'ble National Commission. He has prayed that they may be given an opportunity to file their written statements before the learned DCF. He has submitted that though there has been inordinate delay in this but in the interest of justice the prayer should be allowed on reasonable cost.

 

The learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the prayer of the learned counsel and has argued that the appellant has been negligent in pursuing the case before the learned DCF. They filed no revision against closing of the reply and waited till decision of the learned DCF and then filed an appeal and in

4

appeal they are praying for submission of evidence.

 

We have heard both the counsels. There is no doubt that appellants have been very negligent in pursuing the matter before the learned DCF. The dispute is with regard to costing of the land. The question is whether the cost of the land which was prevalent in the year 1973 is to be charged or cost which was prevalent at the time of handing over the possession is to be charged. This question is a complicated one cannot be decided unless the appellants are given opportunity to place the facts before the learned DCF.

 

In view of this we accept the prayer of the appellants and remand back the file to the learned DCF with the direction that appellant shall be given one opportunity to file their reply and evidence and the case shall be decided on merits afresh. The appellant shall pay a cost of Rs. 21,000/- to the complainant before proceeding further in the matter. Both the parties shall appear before the learned DCF on....1.12.2015.................

 

 

(Liyakat Ali) (Vinay Kumar Chawla)

Member Presiding Member

nm