Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/100/2016

Rajasthan Housingh Board Through Chariman - Complainant(s)

Versus

Jayparkash Bairwa s/o Ramnivas Ji Bairwa - Opp.Party(s)

V.P.Mathur

27 May 2016

ORDER

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

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 100/2016

 

Rajasthan Housing Board, Head Office Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur through Chairman & ors.

Vs.

Jai Prakash Bairwa s/o Ramniwas r/o Plot No. 46-A, Sawai Mansingh colony, Shipra Path, Mansarovar, Jaipur.

 

Date of Order 27.5.2016

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

Mrs. Meena Mehta -Member

 

Mr. V.P.Mathur counsel for the appellants

 

 

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

 

This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the

 

2

 

learned DCF, Jaipur 3^rd dated 27.11.2015 whereby the complaint has been allowed against the appellant.

 

The contention of the appellant is that it was a scheme for specific persons and from independent investigating agency enquiry was conducted and on the enquiry report the registration was cancelled as the complainant was not residing on the given address. Hence, no deficiency of service has been committed by the appellants.

 

Heard the counsel for the appellants and perused the impugned judgment .

 

There is no dispute about the fact that the complainant has get registered himself under the scheme on 4.1.2006 and after lottery he has been allowed a priority number 230. The contention of the appellant is that on enquiry it was found that complainant is not living on the address given but nothing has been shown on record which justified the enquiry so ordered.. There is no provision in the scheme to have such enquiry hence, the enquiry was without competence and further more enquiry report which is the basis of the defence of the appellant has not been submitted before the Forum below.

3

 

Per contra the complainant has submitted Anx. 6 a letter which has been delivered to him by Union Bank of India on the same address and ration card Ex. 9 also shows that complainant is residing on the same address. Hence, cancellation of registration by the appellant is rightly held by the Forum below as deficiency of service and accordingly order has been passed.

 

In view of the above,t here is no merit in this appeal and liable to be rejected.

 

 

(Meena Mehta ) (Nisha Gupta )

Member President

 

 

nm