NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/655/2013

RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD - Complainant(s)

Versus

CHANDRAKALA RAWAT - Opp.Party(s)

MRS. MADHURIMA TATIA & R.M TATIA

17 Mar 2022

ORDER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
 
REVISION PETITION NO. 655 OF 2013
 
(Against the Order dated 19/11/2012 in Appeal No. 57/2012 of the State Commission Rajasthan)
1. RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD
THROUGH SECRETARY, JYOTI NAGAR,,
JAIPUR
RAJASTHAN
2. ESTATE MANAGER , JAIPUR CIRCLE-I
RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD, HEAD OFFICE , JYOTI NAGAR
JAIPUR
RAJASTHAN
...........Petitioner(s)
Versus 
1. CHANDRAKALA RAWAT
SHRI VINOD KUMAR RAWAT, R/O B-111, SECTOR-19, NOIDA,
GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR
U.P
...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. DINESH SINGH,PRESIDING MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KARUNA NAND BAJPAYEE,MEMBER

For the Petitioner :
Mrs. Madhurima Tatia, Advocate
For the Respondent :
Mr. Atul Sharma, Advocate

Dated : 17 Mar 2022
ORDER

1.         This petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Act 1986 in challenge to the Order dated 05.10.2012 in appeals no. 1053 of 2010 and no. 1163 of 2010 read with the Order dated 19.11.2012 in miscellaneous application no. 57 of 2012 of the State Commission arising out of the Order dated 26.04.2010 of the District Commission in complaint no. 791 of 2009.

2.         We have heard the learned counsel and have perused the record. 

The matter relates to allotment of a flat / house by the petitioner housing board to the respondent complainant. The State Commission vide its impugned Order dated 05.10.2012 has made the following award:

            14. The appeal No. 1163/2010 of the Rajasthan Housing Board is dismissed.

The appeal No. 1053/2010 of the complainant is allowed and the impugned order dated 26.04.2010 of the learned DCF in compliant No. 791/2009 (II) is modified to the extent that the Rajasthan Housing Board shall restore the reservation/allotment of the house and issue a fresh demand notice to the complainant for depositing the seed money at the rate prevailing on 21.12.1999 and then to allot a house to the complainant after she deposits the seed money. The complainant shall deposit the demanded seed money with the office of the Board within three months from the date of issuance of the demand notice. The Housing Board shall also make a payment of Rs. 15,000/- (Fifteen Thousand only) to the complainant for mental agony and cost of litigation.

The compliance of the order be made within one month from the date of order. Both the appeals are disposed of accordingly.

3.         During the course of the arguments, the learned counsel for the two sides request for a brief interlude to seek respective instructions. 

4.         After an interlude the learned counsel for the housing board submits, on instructions, that the housing board is ready and willing to allot a ‘flat’ (and not a ‘house’) to the legal heirs of the deceased complainant at the rates prevailing on 05.10.2012 i.e. the date on which the State Commission passed its impugned Order.  She also submits that no interest on the money already deposited by the complainant with the housing board or any other further concession will be provided. The learned counsel further submits that the housing board has condescended to make this concessional accommodation inter alia considering that this is a very old matter and in the efflux of time the complainant has expired and her legal heirs have since been substituted. This type of concession is being made by the housing board in the facts & circumstances and specificities of this case alone, and may not be treated as a precedent. 

The learned counsel for the complainant submits, on instructions, that the legal heirs of the complainant are ready and willing to accept allotment of a ‘flat’ (and not a ‘house’) at the rates prevailing on 05.10.2012 i.e. the date on which the State Commission passed its impugned Order.  He also submits that no interest in respect of the money already deposited by the complainant with the housing board or any other further concession will be asked for.    

5.         In the wake of the above submissions, no further adjudication on merits appears to be warranted or called for.

The revision petition no. 655 of 2013 is disposed of with the direction that the housing board shall allot a ‘flat’ to the legal heirs of the complainant at the rates prevailing on 05.10.2012 i.e. the date on which the State Commission passed its impugned Order. All other terms and conditions of the housing board as are normally applicable to its allottees shall be binding on the legal heirs of the complainant. No interest on the money already deposited by the complainant with the housing board or any other further concession will be provided to the legal heirs of the complainant. This case shall not be treated as a precedent.    

6.         The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to the parties in the petition and to their learned counsel immediately. The stenographer is also requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.                       

 
......................
DINESH SINGH
PRESIDING MEMBER
......................J
KARUNA NAND BAJPAYEE
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.