ORAL The present Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), has been filed by the Complainant against the order dated 06.09.2017 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bench No.II, Jaipur, Rajasthan (for short “the State -2- Commission”) in appeal No.400 of 2015. By the impugned order, the order dated 20.02.2015 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jaipur (III) Jaipur (for short “the District Forum”) in Complaint No.1827 of 2012 (old case No.491 of 2010) was set aside. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the Petitioner/Complainant had applied for a house in the year 1982 from the Respondent/Opposite Party Housing Board. According to the Complainant, she had already deposited the amount as demanded by the Respondent Housing Board from time to time and a house No.32/509, MIG A Category in Pratap Nagar Shanganer Residential Planning was allotted to her. After some time, vide letter dated 22.02.1992, the Respondent sent a revised payment plan and demanded a sum of Rs.12,046/- for taking possession of the said house. She contended that she had deposited the said money by way of Demand Draft and took possession of the house on 13.13.1992. She remained ill and so she continued to live in the tenanted house at Kabir Marg, Banipark, Jaipur. Any post/correspondence addressed to her was not given to her by her landlady with whom she had bad relations. In June 2009, her husband had gone to take care of the allotted house and he found some other person residing in the said house who informed him that the house had been allotted to them. It is submitted that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent Housing Board who despite the fact that the house was initially allotted to her, realloted the house to some other person after cancelling the allotment in her favour. -3- 3. The case in brief of the Respondent/Opposite Party was that although the allotment letter of the said house was issued in the name of the Complainant but the Complainant had never deposited the balance amount of Rs.12,046/- and therefore, the possession of the said house was never handed over to her. Notice dated 20.07.1995 was issued to her to contact the Respondent and pay the balance amount or the allotment would be cancelled. She never contacted and thereafter, vide letter dated 17.01.1996 the said allotment was cancelled and information to this effect was sent to them at the address D-122, Kabir Marg, Banipark, Jaipur, where they were residing. It is submitted that the Complaint had no merit and the same was correctly dismissed by the State Commission and the error committed upon by the District Forum was rectified in the impugned order. 4. On these facts and contentions, the State Commission has held as under: 5. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties at length. After perusal of the fact of the complaint filed by the complainant and submissions of the complainant, it is prime facie clear that the complaint is liable to be dismissed the complainant in para No.7 of her complaint has pointed out that on dated 13.3.92 the physical possession of the said house was given to her and for this effect it is contended that an affidavit is submitted by stating that after taking the possession of the said house she had locked the same when in year 2009 she went see the house then she came to know that some other person is residing in the said house the fact the complaint of the complainant and the affidavit cannot be unacceptable. When the complainant is saying is her complaint and affidavit that she had taken the possession then no matter of deficiency in services against the appellant/Opposite Parties is made out. If someone has took possession illegally then the complainant should take action according to law. 6. the second important point is that when the complainant got the possession in the year 1992 and she also locked the possessed house then after approximately 17 years she never -4- went to see the above said house and in June 2009 when her husband went to see to house then he was came to know that some other person has possessed the said house. This fact is also under suspicion that up to 17 years she never take care of the said house, it is impractical. 7. The submission of the appellant/Opposite Parties is that after year 1982 the complainant not contacted to them and not deposited the amount of ₹12046/- and never came to take possession of the said house, however during the argument it is contended again and again by the complainant that in year 1992 itself she had deposited sum of ₹12046/-, if for a movement it is accepted that she had deposited the said amount then on that basis after year 1992 at what time she contacted to take possession of the said house, this fact is not proved. The facts submitted by the complainant regarding taking possession of the aid house are not acceptable in my view. The fact that the complainant has never received a notice in year 1995 which is also written in Para No.9 and 10 in the complaint of the complainant is also suspicious because without coming the answer of the appellant/Opposite Parties how she came to know that the post/letter sent by the Opposite Parties was not received by her. It is submitted in response of the appellant/Opposite Parties that on dated 30.7.1995 the last the reminder letter was sent to the complainant and then after 6 months the present allotment was cancelled. Hence the fact that the courier-post was not received by the complainant due to bad relations of her with landlady was revealed by complainant at the outset. Hence it appears to me that in year 1995 the receipt of notice was in the knowledge of the complainant. the most amazing fact is that the present complaint was filed in year 2010, I am failed to understand that when the complainant has accepted the fact that she has taken the possession of the said house and this fact is also informed in the complaint and the affidavit of her then for what deficiency is services she is filing the present complaint after 18 years. If in year 2009 someone has taken unauthorized possession of her house then she should take action according to law. It seems to be that the submissions of the appellant/Opposite Parties is liable to accepted that in year 1996 the said allotted house was allotted to someone else, after seeing the conduct of the complainant I cannot reach to any conclusion against the appellant/Opposite Parties. Learned District Forum has considered the letter dated 30.7.1995 of the Rajasthan residential Board as false and order passed in favour of complainant for providing her alternative house is not liable to stand in my view because the complainant has herself admitted that she has taken possession on dated 13.3.92 however it is contended on the behalf of learned counsel for the Complainant that it is return in the complaint of the complainant but in fact that the complainant has not taken the possession, she had deposited the amount and she never received any letter regarding cancellation of the said house. In my view the contention of the complainant cannot be disown when the -5- authentication of the same is corroborated from the affidavit filed by the complainant. The Ld. District Forum has not considered this point. As result the present appeal liable to be allowed and hence allowed. The order passed by learned District Forum is hereby set aside. However, it will be appropriate to order that the complainant will be entitled to receive the deposited amount in lieu of said house from 1.1.1996 with interest rate of 9% per annum from the appellant/Opposite Parties.” 5. This order is impugned before me on the ground that the State Commission has erred in holding that the possession was not handed over to the Complainant/Petitioner and that the Complainant had not paid the balance amount of Rs.12046/-. The only contention and argument addressed by the learned Counsel for the Complainant is that the possession of the allotted house was handed over to them and they had never received any letter of demand or cancellation of the allotment. This Bench has enquired about the copy of letter of possession and the learned Counsel has relied for the said purpose on allotment cum possession letter dated 20.02.1992 which clearly says that an amount of Rs.12046/- was payable at the time of possession. Hence this document cannot be termed as possession letter but merely an allotment letter requiring the Complainant to pay the balance amount towards cost of the house in 156 monthly installments. There is no pleading and no contention that these 156 monthly instalments had been paid by the Complainant. No proof of deposit of amount of Rs.12046 with the Respondent is placed on record by the Complainant. The Respondent has argued that if any sum of Rs.12046/- would have been deposited by the Complainant with them, either in cash or by way of Demand Draft, certainly a receipt of the same would have been issued but the Complainant had not filed -6- any such receipt. It is not the case of the Complainant that no such receipt has been issued. In the absence of any document showing the payment of amount of Rs.12046/- by the Complainant and in the absence of possession letter, it cannot be said that the possession of the flat was handed over to the Complainant. The State Commission therefore has rightly concluded that the Complainant had failed to prove that the physical possession of the flat was handed over to her. 6. The case of the Complainant is that they received the possession on 13.03.1992 and they continued to live in a rented accommodation paying rent till the year 2009 when according to the Complainant, for the first time, her husband had gone to enquire about the condition of the house of which she alleges to be the owner. It is strange that a person who owns a house and claims physical possession of the same, would continue to live in a rented accommodation paying the rent and thus spending money on rent when she owns a house. Any prudent person would have invested the money which he pay by way of rent on the house owned by him than paying rent for rented accommodation and keeping the own house closed for more than 17 years. This fact further shows that the contention in the Complaint that the possession was given to the Complainant was to the knowledge of the Complainant itself is false. 7. It is a frivolous Complaint filed by the Complainant seeking compensation of her own wrong. The Respondent had correctly cancelled the -7- allotment letter of the house in her favour. There is no illegality or infirmity in the order impugned. I find no reason to intervene. 8. The Revision Petition has no merit and the same is dismissed. | 
