JUSTICE V.K.JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)

          The complainant/petitioner applied to the respondent Jaipur Development Authority for allotment of a house in Murlipura scheme.  In a draw of lot held on 26.07.1995, house no.C-201, was allotted to him for a price of Rs.58,130/-.  After adjusting the initial deposit of Rs.5,000/- which the complainant had made with the respondent, the balance amount payable by him came to Rs.53,130/- which was to be paid in installments.  The first installment of Rs.5,130/- was paid by the petitioner/complainant on 02.11.1995.  When the complainant went to the spot to inspect the allotted house, he found the said house occupied by another person namely Kailash Chander.  Since no alternative house was allotted to him, the complainant/petitioner approached the concerned District Forum by way of a Consumer Complaint seeking possession of the house which had been allotted to him by the respondent alongwith compensation.

2.      The complaint was resisted by the respondent Jaipur Development Authority which inter-alia stated in its written version that since Kailash Chander had encroached upon the house allotted to the complainant, possession could not be given to the complainant.  It was also stated in the written version that when action was sought to be taken by the respondent for removal of the said encroachment, Sh. Kailash Chander approached the appellate authority which passed an order on 14.08.1996, directing that the complainant may be allotted some other house. 

3.      The District Forum, vide its order dated 12.09.2018, directed the respondent Jaipur Development Authority to refund the amount of Rs.10,130/- which the petitioner/complainant had deposited with it alongwith interest @ 9% per annum and also pay a sum of Rs.2 lacs as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as the cost of litigation to him. 

4.      Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the respondent Jaipur Development Authority approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal.  Since the complainant was also dissatisfied with the order passed by the District Forum, he also preferred an appeal before the State Commission. 

5.      Vide impugned order dated 29.08.2019, the State Commission dismissed both the appeals.  Being aggrieved, the complainant/petitioner is before this Commission. 

6.      It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant that since house no.C-201 which the respondent had allotted to the petitioner/complainant, had been occupied by Sh. Kailash Chander, it was imperative for the Jaipur Development Authority to allot an alternative house in the same scheme or some other comparable scheme to the petitioner/complainant.  I however, find that no prayer for allotment of an alternative house was made in the Consumer Complaint.  The complainant knew, even before institution of the Consumer Complaint that house no. C-201 was not available, the same having been encroached upon by Sh. Kailash Chander.  Moreover, the appellate tribunal had also directed the respondent authority to allot some house other than house no.C-201 to the complainant.  Despite that, no prayer was made by him for allotment of some other house in the same scheme or for allotment of a house in some other comparable scheme of Jaipur Development Authority.  The complainant having not made such a prayer in the Consumer Complaint, instituted by him, it cannot be known whether an alternative house was actually available with the respondent Jaipur Development Authority for allotment to the petitioner/complainant or not.  In any case, he having insisted upon a particular prayer despite knowing fully well that the allotted house was no more available for being delivered to him, the same having been occupied by Sh. Kailash Chander, he cannot, at this stage, seek allotment of an alternative house to him. 

7.      The petitioner/complainant paid only Rs.10,130/- to the respondent authority.  That amount has been permitted to be refunded to him alongwith interest.  He has also been awarded compensation quantified at Rs.2,00,000/-.  In the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted hereinabove, the concurrent view taken by the fora below does not call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.  The Revision Petition is therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.