Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/1097/2017

Rajasthan Housing Board - Complainant(s)

Versus

Giriraj Prasad Sharma S/o Late Shri Bhouri Lal - Opp.Party(s)

Ratnesh Yadav

01 May 2018

ORDER

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

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 1097/2017

 

Rajasthan Housing Board, Jaipur through Chairman & ors.

Vs.

Shri Giriraj Prasad Sharma s/o late Bhourilal Sharma r/o 1625 Bagaru walon ka Rasta, Chandpole Bazar , Jaipur.

 

Date of Order 1.5.2018

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

 

Mr. Shiv Vyas counsel for the appellants

Mr. Avinash Vyas counsel for the respondent

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

This appeal is filed against the order passed by the District Forum, Jaipur 2^nd dated 16.8.2017 whereby the

2

 

claim is allowed against the appellant.

 

The contention of the appellant is that flat has already been allotted and allotment letter dated 28.12.2011 is being issued hence, no deficiency has been committed by the appellant. No relief is claimed by the consumer respondent as regard to cost of the flat. The consumer has not asked for an independent house in Pratap Nagar or Indira Nagar Scheme and even the compensation is allowed more than the asked hence, the claim should have been dismissed.

 

Per contra the contention of the respondent is that he asked for an independent house which was not allotted to him. His registration was unnecessarily cancelled. Hence, the claim has rightly been allowed.

 

Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment as well as original record of the case.

 

There is no dispute about the fact that the complainant was registered in 1980. His registration was cancelled which was restored and vide lottery draw dated 7.10.2011 a flat of

3

 

MIG-B in Mansarovar was allotted to him. The contention before the Forum below was that the complainant booked an independent house but Anx. 1 application for registration clearly reveals that registration was for house/flat hence, the contention of the consumer that he was registered for an independent house has no basis and counsel for the consumer could not show any document which fortify the contention of the consumer that only independent house was booked. Hence, the relief which has been alternatively allowed to the consumer has no basis and cannot stand.

 

A bare perusal of the complaint goes to show that no relief has been claimed as regard to the cost of the flat inspite of this the Forum below has allowed the relief of cost which is prevalent on 7.10.2011 hence, this relief also could not stand.

 

It is true that due to the mistake of the Housing Board the consumer could not get the flat as his registration was cancelled earlier. Hence, the complainant is entitled for compensation but the maximum compensation which has been claimed by the complainant is only Rs. 4 lakhs whereas the Forum below has allowed the compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs and

4

 

it is settled law that the relief which has not been claimed should not be granted. Hence, the compensation is reduced to Rs. 2 lakhs.

 

The consumer has also based his claim on the factual report submitted by the Dy.Housing Commissioner. The report of Jagdish Prasad Pathak is relates to Parijat Scheme which is different from the present one and in report of the present complainant there is no reference of the independent house hence, could not benefit the consumer. This factual report is of dated 28.2.2011 and it is only in reference of renewal of registration.

 

In view of the above, the appeal is partly allowed. The consumer respondent is entitled to get Rs. 2 lakhs as compensation instead of Rs. 5 lakhs awarded by the Forum below. Relief of para no.2 is set aside and so also the order in relation to cost of the flat is set aside.

(Nisha Gupta) President

nm