Aggrieved by the order dated 21.10.2010 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (in short, ‘State Commission’) in appeal No. 105 of 2006, Rajasthan Housing Board and its functionaries have filed the present proceedings purportedly under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The appeal before the State Commission was filed against an order dated 29.11.2005 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Kota in complaint case No. 185 of 2003. By the said order, the District Consumer Forum had dismissed the complaint holding that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party-Housing Board. In appeal, the State Commission has however, set aside the said order and has directed the opposite party-Housing Board to pay interest on the deposited amount alongwith interest in the form of compensation and for mental torture amounting to Rs.70,000/- with the stipulation that the amount shall be paid within one month of the order failing which, it shall carry interest @12% per annum. -3- We have heard Mr. Ram Naresh Yadav, learned counsel representing the petitioners and Mr. Vikram Jain, learned counsel representing the opposite party and have considered their respective submissions. The facts and circumstances of the case which led to the filing of the complaint are amply-noted in the orders passed by fora below and need no repetition at our end. The essential facts which may dispose of the present proceedings are that that complainant had deposited a sum of Rs.46,400/- with the opposite party-Housing Board for allotment of fully built house in Bundi, which could not be allotted to him and rather partially constructed house was offered which the complainant declined and rather prayed for allotment of constructed house with plinth level in Kota which also did not materialize and, therefore, the complaint was filed. It appears that during the pendency of the proceedings before the fora below, Housing Board refunded a sum of Rs.43,680/- to the complainant, after making certain deductions. Learned counsel for the complainant would assail the impugned order primarily on the ground that the District Consumer Forum had no requisite territorial -4- jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and secondly, the complaint filed was beyond limitation and that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party-Housing Board in as much as the complainant himself defaulted in making the payment of the instalments. On the other hand, the respondent and his counsel submits that the petitioner-Board has adopted unfair trade practice in offering partially built house as against the promise of allotting a fully constructed house and, therefore, they are guilty of deficiency in service. We are in agreement with the view taken by the State Commission in this behalf. However, the relief as granted to the complainant needs to be modulated having regard to the nature and extent of the deficiency as also the complainant’s own conduct in not making the timely payment of remaining instalments. As the amount of Rs.46,400/- was deposited about two decades ago, we consider it appropriate to grant a lump sum compensation of Rs.50,000/- including the cost of litigation. The order of the State Commission shall stand modified to that extent. The amount of Rs.50,000/- shall be paid to the complainant within a period of four -5- weeks, failing which the said amount shall carry interest @12% per annum. The revision petition stands disposed of in the above terms. |
