Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/185/2018

Rajasthan Housing Board - Complainant(s)

Versus

Gopal Prasad Sharma s/o Lat. Shri D.R.Sharma - Opp.Party(s)

Ashok Kumar Avasthi

14 Aug 2018

ORDER

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

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 185 /2018

 

Rajasthan Housing Board Ajmer through Resident Engineer, Ajmer & ors.

Vs.

Gopal Prasad Sharma s/o late D.R.Sharma r/o 1073/3 Sanjay Nagar, Kajipura Road, Ajmer.

 

Date of Order 14.8.2018

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

 

Mr. Ashok Kumar Awasthi counsel for the appellant

Respondent present in-person

 

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

 

This appeal is filed against the order passed by the District Forum, Ajmer dated 16.1.2018 whereby the claim is

2

 

allowed against the appellant.

 

The contention of the appellant is that within one month as per the required condition the amount has not been paid. Thereafter power of regularization was only with the Chairman, Housing Board but the respondent has not submitted any application to the Chairman. No deficiency has been committed by the appellant and the claim should have been dismissed.

 

Per contra the contention of the respondent is that as per rules he was entitled to pay the requisite amount in four months and thereafter on deposit of penalty and interest he was entitled for regularization and claim has rightly been allowed.

 

Heard the counsel for the appellant and respondent in-person and perused the impugned order as well as original record of the case.

 

There is no dispute about the fact that as per allotment letter Ex. R 2 the money was to be deposited within one month but due to two consecutive holidays the respondent has tried to

3

 

deposit the money on next day but regularization was not done.

 

The respondent has rightly pointed our the procedure for Registration and Allotment of House, 1981 where four months time is allowed to deposit the amount. Hence, condition mentioned in Ex. R 2 is in derogation to the rules and cannot be sustained and further more inspite of the various applications by the respondent regularization has not been made and allotment was cancelled on 4.6.2015. Hence, it is not only deficiency on the part of the appellant but unfair trade practice also.

 

In view of above, there is no merit in this appeal and in view of unfair trade practice adopted by the appellant the appeal stands rejected on Rs. 10,000/- cost which should be paid to the respondent within one month otherwise the respondent is entitled for 9% interest on above amount from the date of order.

(Nisha Gupta) President

nm