This revision petition has been filed by the Rajasthan Housing Board arising out of the order dated 30.01.2004 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Camp Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as the District Commission) in Complaint Case No. 725 of 2003 that has been confirmed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) in First Appeal No. 469 of 2004 vide order dated 15.05.2009.

The dispute arose out of an allotment of a MIG premises that was applied for by the late wife of the respondent/complainant in 1979.  A sum of Rs.3000/- was deposited as registration fee on 30.01.1980.  However, the said request for allotment was converted into an application for a HIG accommodation for which a balance of Rs.7000/-, coupled with Rs.800/- penalty, was deposited on 04.06.1982.  The allotment was to be made according to the priorities on lottery.  A letter of allotment was issued on 30.10.1993 that was modified on 27.03.1997. The respondent/complainant paid the first instalment of Rs.35,000/- on 17.05.1997.  It may be pointed out that the wife of the respondent/complainant had died and the allotment was continued in the name of the respondent/complainant.  A formal allotment letter was issued on 03.12.1996 and when the lottery was held on 22.03.2000 the respondent/ complainant was allotted premises no. 152/34 Mansarovar.  The final allotment letter dated 30.06.2000 coupled with a demand of Rs.1,81,246/- was also sent to the respondent/complainant.  This demand was as against the entire cost of the premises which was Rs.8,52,502/-.

From the record, it appears that the demand indicated a mode of higher purchase monthly instalment of Rs.9682/- and the calculation sheet with the cost of the premises as well as other charges were totalled where-after the paid amount by the respondent/complainant was adjusted indicating that the amount to be paid before possession after payment of 856 instalments of Rs.5,58,750/-, would be a sum of Rs.1,81,245.16 ps.  The calculation part is extracted hereunder:

“Details of Cost of House/Flat & Other Expenses

Cost of House Flat :

1. Cost of Land (Area 189.00 sq. mtrs.)   770/-    Rs.1,45,530=00

(@Rs……………per sq. mtrs.)

2. Cost of extra land  1.80  x  1155/-                  Rs.2,079=00
3. Cost of Construction                                                Rs.5,99,470=00
4. Extra Charges for DC/SDC                              Rs………………..

Other Charges    :                                              Rs.7,47,079=00

1.  Ancillary Service Charges                                Rs.18,676=97
2. Lease money (Ten Ek years)                    Rs.3,690=22
3. Hire Purchase Charges                                     Rs.37,353=95
4. Fire Insurance Charges                                     Rs.420=00
5. Monthly Installment (one)                                Rs.9,682=02
6. Interest on Outstanding seed money                 Rs.8,500=00

                                                                              Total Rs.78,323=16

Total (A+B)                                                  Rs.8,25,402=16

(D)    Less:

          1.       Registration Amount                            Rs.10,000=00

          2.       Interest on Registration Amount    Rs.20,370=00

          3.       Seed Money/Installment                       Rs.35,000=00

          4.       Interest on seed money/InstallmentRs.20,037=00

                                                                     Total Rs.85,407+00

                                                      Balance (C+D)   Rs.7,39,995=16

(E)     Amount Deferred in 156 Monthly

          Instalments Rate of Interest 19%                              Rs.5,58,750=00

(F)      Amount to be paid before Possession                 Rs.1,81,245=16”

The respondent/complainant after having received this demand appears to have expressed his inability to pay the demanded price and made a request vide letter dated 07.09.2000 to reduce the same.  The Housing Board declined to do so and consequently on 15.01.2001 the respondent/complainant sent a letter stating that he is financially unable to deposit such a large amount and therefore he sought refund.  The reason given by the respondent/complainant was that when the premises had been booked in 1979, the cost indicated was only Rs.1,90,000/- but it has been escalated far beyond the same as per the calculation given above, as such he was unable to deposit and consequently he prayed for refund.

The Housing Board intimated the respondent/complainant vide letter dated 22.11.2001 that the amount would be refunded after deducting 20% from the registration fee deposited by him and the balance registration amount alongwith the other deposited amount shall be refunded.  This letter has been filed as Annexure P/4.

Accordingly, a sum of Rs.2000/- was deducted out of the registration fee of Rs.10,000/- deposited by the respondent/complainant being 20% deduction and then a sum of Rs.8000/- plus the amount of Rs.35,000/- deposited as first instalment was refunded through a cheque of Rs.43,000/- on 21.03.2001.  It is therefore obvious that no interest was paid on the amount, as a result whereof the respondent/complainant instituted the complaint contending that as per the calculation sheet that has been extracted hereinabove the Housing Board had calculated a sum of Rs.20,370/- as interest on the registration amount and Rs.20,037/- as interest on the seed money/first instalment.  Thus, a sum of Rs.40,407/- had been shown as interest that was deducted while calculating the demand from the respondent/complainant. 

This amount of interest was not paid and so was the 20% amount that had been according to the respondent/complainant wrongly deducted.  The District Commission arrived at the conclusion that the non-payment of interest on the refunded amount was illegal and the complaint was allowed directing a payment of Rs.42,407/- together with interest w.e.f. 24.03.2001 and Rs.1000/- as costs.

Aggrieved, the Housing Board approached the State Commission in an appeal contending that the deduction of 20% was made as per the brochure and the rules and that no interest was payable on the amount of refund in the event of cancellation of booking is sought by an allottee.  The appeal therefore was filed on these two grounds urging that the District Commission has committed an error in allowing the complaint against rules that was impermissible.

Mr. Chauhan, learned counsel for the Housing Board, has urged that once it is undisputed that the respondent/complainant had sought cancellation of the allotment, then he cannot contest the rules as applicable for deduction of 20% of registration fee or non-payment of interest on refund sought.  The appeal by the State Commission had also been dismissed and therefore Mr. Chauhan urged that the same error has been committed by the Appellate Forum, hence both the impugned orders deserve to be set aside.

At the outset, it may be mentioned that this revision petition was filed with a delay of 110 days way back in the year 2010 when it was admitted on 09.02.2010.  The record however nowhere indicates the condonation of delay application having been disposed of.  We have therefore heard Mr. Chauhan and we find that the cause shown for delay is sufficient and also the delay at this stage of final hearing of the matter deserves to be condoned.  The revision petition therefore is entertained as having been filed within time.  The delay condonation application is allowed.

There is yet another aspect which needs mention, namely, that notices were issued to the respondent/complainant who after having received notice sent his written submissions in writing which are dated 15.03.2010 and have been placed on record vide diary no. 3596 dated 18.03.2010.  The said written arguments of the respondent/complainant in person states that the respondent/complainant is 77 years of age.  It is thus evident that in the year 2010 the complainant was 77 years of age and 14 years have passed by now.  God willing he might be alive and would be about 91 years of age as on date.  The prayer made therein is that he cannot afford to contest this litigation at Delhi and therefore his written arguments be considered and the revision petition be accordingly dismissed as no grounds have been made out for interference with the orders passed in his favour.

The petition was taken up on earlier occasions and due to lapse of time and the matter not having been taken up, dasti notices were again issued in 2019 but it could not be served where-after the petitioner Housing Board was called upon to provide the fresh address of the respondent/complainant.  That was also done subsequently but notices could not be served as a result whereof a direction was issued for substituted service on 05.05.2023.  The petitioners have carried out substituted service by publishing the notices in two newspapers, namely, Rajasthan Patrika and Hindustan Times that has been placed on record.  Thus, service will be presumed to have been completed on the respondent/complainant in the background above, more so in the wake of the fact that the respondent/complainant had already filed his written arguments as noted above in 2010 itself praying for excusing his presence otherwise.

We have examined the contentions raised and the undisputed facts are that the deposits made by the respondent/complainant at the time of allotment are not disputed as per the calculation sheet extracted hereinabove.  Thus, a sum of Rs.10,000/- had been deposited as registration fee (Rs.3000/- in 1980 and Rs.7000/- in 1982).  Over and above this, the first instalment of Rs.35,000/- was deposited in 1997.  It is this deposited amount on which a sum of Rs.40,407/- was calculated as interest when the demand was raised from the respondent/complainant on 30.06.2001.  This amount of interest accrued on the registration fee of Rs.10,000/- as well as Rs.35,000/- as the first instalment/seed money deposited by the respondent/complainant that was calculated for deducting it from the final dues as depicted in the calculation sheet referred to above.  Thus, this amount which had been paid in 1980, 1982 and 1997 had earned interest as per the calculation made by the Housing Board itself.  

The question as to whether the interest amount is payable or not, came to be disputed by the petitioners/Housing Board on the ground that in the event of an allottee seeking refund on cancellation voluntarily, he is not entitled to any such interest on the deposited amount and that 20% can be deducted from the registration fee.  It is therefore submitted that a sum of Rs.2000/- from the registration fee was deducted as a result whereof Rs.8000/- was payable under the said head and a sum of Rs.35,000/- which had been paid as instalment was also refundable but without interest.  Thus, it was only a total sum of Rs.43,000/- which was refundable and was actually refunded to the respondent/complainant in 2001 itself.  There was no question of refund of the entire amount of registration fee or any interest on the registration fee or the instalment as indicated above.  The calculation of interest while raising a demand was made only for the purpose of extending a benefit to a responsive buyer under the calculation sheet referred to above but in the instant case since the respondent/complainant withdrew from the offer seeking cancellation, the refund was not permissible together with interest under the rules as urged hereinabove and was also pleaded before the District Commission as well as the State Commission.  The contention therefore is that these pleadings have been completely ignored which are contrary to the rules applicable for the purpose of allotment by the Housing Board.

No rule or regulation has been filed on record nor the terms of the brochure or the rules have been produced before us nor are they part of the record of the present revision petition.  Thus, there is nothing on record for us to gather that there are such existing rules which permit deduction of 20% from the registration fee at the time of refund or also prohibit the payment of interest on the refundable amount.  In the absence of any such rules being brought to our notice, it is not possible to accept the argument of the Housing Board on this issue.

The pleading made has to be seen in the light of the reply of the Housing Board dated 22.11.2001 which is extracted hereunder:

“Rajasthan Housing Board, Jyoti Nagar Jaipur

Date: 22.11.2001

No. 5337

To

Mr. Brij Bhushan Saxena

Udaipur

Subject: House No. 152/34, Category – HIG, Scheme-Mansarovar

Sir,

          You had been allotted the abovementioned house by the letter issued by this office bearing No. 2401 dated 30.06.2001. You have expressed your inability to continue to sustain the registration and have requested for refund of the deposited amount. Therefore your registration/allotment stands cancelled. As per the Rules of the Board out of the registration fee deposited by you 20% shall be deducted and the balance registration amount along with other deposited amount shall be refunded to you.

For quick refund process your request for refund is being sent to the Refund wing of Head Office. Kindly contact the Refund Wing of the Head Office.

Estate Manager

Rajasthan Housing Board

Mansarovar, Jaipur”

This reply was given by the Housing Board to the respondent/complainant intimating that 20% deduction shall be made from the registration fee and the balance registration amount alongwith the other deposited amount shall be refunded.  The same nowhere states that the refund shall be without interest nor does it refer to any rule which prohibits or does not permit the grant of interest on the refundable amount.  It is valid to presume, that since the money was retained by the Housing Board, a sum of Rs.3000/- from 1980 to 2001, a sum of Rs.7000/- from 1982 to 2001 and a sum of Rs.35,000/- from 1997 to 2001, it had earned interest which is evident from the calculation sheet where the said amount of interest has been offered as a deduction against the demand raised.  The presumption therefore is that the interest earned on the said amounts was also treated to be the corpus of the respondent/complainant for the purpose of calculating the balance of the payment.  The Housing Board itself treated the said interest to have been earned on the money deposited by respondent/complainant and therefore if the principal amount was being refunded, there does not seem to be any rationale to accept the plea that the interest earned on the amount deposited by the respondent/complainant will not be payable to him.  No forfeiture on that count can be inferred in the absence of any rule or agreement.  To the contrary, if the money was retained by the Housing Board, it is obvious that the interest thereon also accrued in favour of the respondent/complainant and to his benefit which is also reflected in the calculation sheet.  The benefit of interest therefore is not subject to any such forfeiture nor any rule has been shown which may permit the Housing Board to do so.  The respondent/complainant had not waived his legal right to claim interest on refund.

Even otherwise, the interest has rightly been found to be payable to the respondent/complainant by the Fora below.

The question as to whether there is any such rule for forfeiting 20% of the registration fee and the interest in the event of a cancellation of an allotment of a premises by an allottee, since has not been brought forth or demonstrated before this Commission, we leave it open to the petitioners/Housing Board to contest this issue in the event such a rule is available in any other case that may arise on such facts in future.

On the facts of the present case, since nothing has been established by the petitioners as reasoned out hereinabove, we do not find any merit in the revision petition.  It is hereby dismissed.