REKHA GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER

        The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 15.03.2017 of the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur, Circuit Bench, Jodhpur (‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal no. 6 of 2017.

2.     The facts of the case as per the respondent/ complainant are that the petitioner/ complainant launched a housing scheme in Balotra City on 26.03.2007. The respondent applied under the said scheme for a Lower Income Group House vide application no. GRS – 2007/ 7404 dated 23.04.2007 by depositing the registration amount of Rs.10,000/-. Petitioner no. 2 vide letter no. 347/ 2008-09 intimated the respondent that a house has been reserved for her. The respondent deposited the 1^st instalment of the seed money of Rs.8,000/- on 30.06.2008 and the 2^nd instalment of Rs.8,000/- was deposited on 30.12.2008. Thereafter the petitioner issued an allotment letter no. 379 on 11.06.2009 and thereby allotted house no. 4/ 292 measuring 6 x12 meters on Hire Purchase mode of payment to the respondent. The total cost of house was fixed at Rs.3,82,595/-. The respondent failed to deposit the required demanded amount before 10.07.2009 in compliance of allotment letter and could not take the possession of the house, but on demand of petitioner’s letter no. 926 to deposit the required amount before taking the possession on 15.07.2009, the respondent deposited the required amount of Rs.93,434/- on 14.07.2009 vide receipt no. 53, the remaining amount of Rs.2,62,641/- was to be deposited in 12 monthly instalments for 180 months. The grievance of the respondent was that the petitioner has not delivered the physical possession of house and her registration has been cancelled despite of the fact that she had deposited the amount before the date of possession and the petitioners had intimated the respondent vide registered letter no. 488 dated 25.06.2010 that the registration of the respondent was cancelled due to non-payment of the required amount within the fixed time period. The respondent had deposited the amount of Rs.1,19,434/-, before the stipulated date but the petitioners cancelled the allotment of the house of the respondent despite this. Hence, the respondent has filed a complaint before the District Forum with the following prayer:

• The petitioners should be directed / ordered to entrust the possession of house no. 4/292 situated in Housing Board, Balotra measuring 6 mtrs x 12 mtrs;

• The respondent is suffering mental, financial and physical trauma due to negligence on the part of respondents, deficient and defective services, against which excepts the above, the petitioner should be ordered/ directed to grant the following reliefs to the respondent:

3.     The petitioner Housing Board in their reply stated that the respondent was allotted house no. 4/ 292 vide allotment letter no. 379 on 11.06.2009. The respondent had to submit the necessary documents including undertaking, affidavit, etc., duly attested by the competent authority along with demand draft/ cheque for the advance amount to be deposited within one month before taking the possession in compliance of the terms and conditions as mentioned in the above allotment letter. But these documents and advance amounts were not submitted by the respondent in the office of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner issued letter no. 926 dated 20.11.2009 thereby intimating the respondent to deposit the above said amount along with all the required documents in the office of the petitioner within fifteen days positively and take the possession. Despite this the respondent did not take any action. Therefore, the allotment of the house to the respondent was cancelled vide order no. 448 dated 25.06.2010, which was duly intimated to the respondent and refunded the amount of Rs.16,000/- deposited by the respondent through cheque no. 80774 dated 03.06.2010. The said amount had been released in favour of the respondent on 03.09.2010.

4.     The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jodhpur (Second) (‘the District Forum’) vide its order dated 16.11.2016 while allowing the complaint observed as under:

“It is found from the perusal of record that the complainant had to deposit the amount of Rs.93,434/- within a period of one month before taking the possession of allotted house no. 4/ 292 as per directions in letter dated 11.06.2009. The period of one month from the date of allotment 11.06.2009 was completed on 10.07.2009. Admittedly the amount of Rs.93,434/- was not deposited in this period, but it is contended by complainant that the opponents permitted to deposit the pre-possession amount till 15.07.2009 vide its letter no. 926 and on the basis of this permission she had deposited the required amount on 14.07.2009. The above permission was granted is stand proved from the letter no. 3020 dated 20.01.2012 issued by the opponents. The opponents gave the reply to the legal notice on behalf of complainant through this letter. It is admitted by opponents in paragraph no. 2 of this letter that the 1^st notice vide letter no. 926 was issued to complainant on 20.11.2009, as per which permission was granted to deposit the amount till date 15.07.2009. The contention of the complainant is stand proved from this reply that the opponents extended the period for depositing amount of Rs.93,434/- from 10.07.2009 to 15.07.2009. Therefore, the contention of opponents is completely wrong that the complainant failed to deposit the required amount within the time period. As far as question of not submitting the original challan and necessary documents is concerned, the opponents has not produced before us any letter or copy of notice issued to complainant thereby demanding to submit the above documents and original challan. In these circumstances this fact is not acceptable that the complainant is willing to get the house, has not submitted the required documents undertaking and affidavits etc., the malafide intentions of opponents are also apparent from the fact that the complainant deposited the amount of Rs.1,19,434/- with the opponents till 14.07.2009, but despite this while intimating the complainant regarding cancellation of allotment only the amount of Rs.16,000/- was refunded through cheque. The above act on the part of the opponents amounts to deficiency in services.

8.     As far as question of relief is concerned, the witness of opponents L L Guru, resident Engineer filed his affidavit in evidence, wherein, it is mentioned that after cancelling the allotment of the complainant, the said house has been allotted to Ganga Devi Aseri in Open Sale Scheme by issuing the allotment letter dated 28.02.2011 and possession has been delivered to Ganga Devi on 12.05.2011. The above fact is not disputed by the complainant. In these circumstances, it is not possible to deliver the possession of house no. 4/ 292 and order to execute lease deed in favour of complainant, but it is justified to allow the complaint of the complainant to the extent that the amount deposited by the complainant with the opponents, that amount is ordered to be refunded with interest, and awarded appropriate compensation for mental, financial and physical damages suffered by complainant. In view of these findings, of the complaint of complainant is liable to be allowed.

ORDER

Therefore, the complaint of complainant is allowed, the opponents is directed to refund the balance amount of Rs.1,03,434/- out of THE total amount of Rs.1,19,434/- deposited by complainant with them and this amount will carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 15.07.2009 till payment. In addition to this, they are also liable to pay the compensation of Rs.40,000/- towards mental, physical and financial damages to the complainant and also pay the amount of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses. If these amounts are not paid within one month then it will also carry the interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of order till realisation.”

5.     Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission while dismissing the appeal observed as under:

“The complainant booked a house, allotment was also made in her favour and she was intimated to deposit the pre-possession amount, which was not deposited within time, however, total amount of Rs.1,19,434/- was deposited, whereas cheque for the amount of Rs.16,000/- was delivered and the amount of Rs.1,03,434/- was not refunded and the District Forum directed to refund this amount.

There is no error in the order passed by the District Forum. Therefore, appeal is liable to be dismissed, which is hereby dismissed.”

6.     Hence, the present revision.

7.     I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have carefully gone through the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the State Commission had erroneously awarded the interest of 9% vide order dated 16.11.2016. He further stated that the petitioner were agreeable to refund the amount of Rs.1,19,434/- but the interest should be given as per the rate applicable on the savings bank account as the amount continued to lie in the account of the petitioner and the amount was not used. No further point was urged.

8.     It is seen from the record that as per the allotment letter, the allotment could only be cancelled if the requisite amount was not deposited in time. From the order of the District Forum it is clear that the petitioner had extended the period of depositing the amount of Rs.93,434/- from 10^th July 2009 to 15^th July 2009. From the challan placed on record it is clear that the said amount was deposited on 14^th July 2009, i.e., well before the extended period. The respondent was given the third copy of the challan and the 1^st and the 2^nd copy of the challan should have been with the Bank and the petitioner.  However, it appears that having received the amount, the petitioner failed to reconcile the accounts and gave notice on 20.11.2009 and 16.12.2009, for non-depositing of the amount by the respondent. Thereafter they also included the name of the respondent in the defaulters list published in the newspaper on 30.01.2010, in spite of the fact that she had deposited the requisite amount in time. Further, to compound their mistake they issued a cancellation of the allotment order on 25.06.2010 and only refunded the amount of Rs.16,000/- through cheque no.80774.

9.     It is quite clear from the above that on the date of cancellation, the petitioner had already paid Rs.1,90,434/- in spite of that the petitioner cancelled the allotment and sold the respondent’s house to a third party. The complainant was thus, deprived of the house she had booked in the year 2007 for a roof over her head. The petitioner has denied her the compensation due to her as the amounts deposited by her were retained for so many years. The Counsel could not explain as to why the entire amount had not been refunded on cancellation. They further, failed to take note of the fact that the respondent had paid the amount by the extended due date and yet the allotment was cancelled. The lower Fora have correctly appreciated the facts of the case and have given a just and fair order. Further, had the respondent not deposited the amount with the petitioner she would not have kept such a large sum of money in a savings bank account but in a fixed deposit and hence the interest awarded at 9% is fair and right.

10.    In view of the discussion above, I find no jurisdictional error or material irregularity in the impugned order which may call for interference in exercise of powers under section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  Revision petition is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.

11.    The petitioner board may order an enquiry and recover the amount from the erring officials due to their negligence the allotment of the house of the respondent was cancelled, even though the amount had been deposited on time but the petitioner failed to reconcile their accounts.