1.      The present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Section ­­­21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the “Act”) against impugned order dated 29.10.2015, passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan (‘State Commission’) in Appeal No.1044/2012, wherein the Appeal filed by the Respondent/Complainant was allowed and directed the Petitioner/ Opposite Party to pay Rs.50,000/- along with Rs.10,000/- as litigation cost. Whereas, vide the Order dated 18.07.2012, the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ajmer (“District Forum”) dismissed the Consumer Complaint No.212 of 2012.

2.      As per office report, there is a delay of 10 days in filing the present Revision Petition. For the reason stated in Application seeking Condonation of delay vide IA No. 1967/2016, the same is condoned.

3.      Brief facts of the case, as per the Complainant, in the year 2012, the OP had invited Applications for allotment of Lower Income Group houses in the Naseerabad Registration Scheme, 2011. The Complainant applied for G-2-B Category house in which 5% was reserved for Advocates, CAs and private Doctors. In furtherance of the same paid Rs. 200 for application form and, after completing all formalities, he also paid Rs.15000/- as registration fee. After this, the Complainant came to know that he has been included in G-2-A Category instead of G-2 B Category. This change of category by the OP without giving any prior intimation to the Complainant is deficiency in services. The Complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum seeking compensation of Rs.50,000/- for deficiency in services, Rs.15000/- for mental and financial agony and Rs.11000/- as cost of litigation.

4.      In reply, the Petitioner/OP has stated that because of a mistake on part of the OP, the Complainant was put in G2A category, instead of G2B Category. There is no malafide intention of the opposite party. In the application form there was no provision for giving information to the Complainant regarding change in category. From the side of the OP a temporary list of the applicants was published in newspaper Dainik Navjyoti, Ajmer on 27.12.2011. However, the said date inadvertently written in the Reply as 10.01.2012 and objections were invited till 16.01.2012. Thereafter, on 19.01.2012 the final list was published. However, even after change of category of the Complainant from G2B to G2A no objections were raised by the Complainant. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service by the OP.

5.      The learned District Forum vide Order dated 18.07.2012, dismissed the complaint with the following findings:

  “4.    It is the contention of the O.P that by mistake the complainant was included in G2A category instead of G2B category. However it was a bonafide mistake. It is also contention of the O.P that at the time of applications it was instructed to the applicants that the housing board would be publishing temporary list of eligible applicants in the newspaper and a date was also fixed for giving objections to the aforesaid list. The complainant have not given any objection till the aforesaid last date. According to the O.P the temporary list was published in the newspaper Dainik Nav Jyoti on 10.01.2012 and objections were to be given on the aforesaid list by 16.01.2012. However the complainant had not given any objection till the said date and therefore on 19.01.2012 a final list was published. Therefore the complainant himself has not fulfilled his obligations. It is there contention that had the complainant invited the attention of the O.P to any discrepancy in the temporary list then the O.P would have corrected the same. However without fulfilling its own duties the complainant cannot now hold O.P to be liable. There is no denial of this contention by the complainant. It has also been contended by the complainant that he had filled the application form correctly and given it to the O.P. and it is also accepted by the O.P that the mistake was on their part.

5.        Along with the application form information was given to the complainant that temporary list would be published by them and any objection which the applicant have with regard to the aforesaid list may be submitted to the O.P. within stipulated time. In the compliant it has nowhere been contended that the O.P. has not published the temporary list or that there was no time given to file objections. From the aforesaid admitted facts it is found that an obligation was put on the complainant at the time of filing the application and the complainant failed to fulfill this obligation. Therefore the complainant now cannot hold the O.P entirely responsible for his own negligence and cannot claim benefit of the same. In such situation in the opinion of this forum the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

ORDER

  Therefore the present complaint is dismissed.”

                                        (Extracted from translated copy)

6.      Aggrieved by the Order of the District forum, the Respondent/ Complainant filed Appeal No.1044/2012 before the learned State Commission. The State Commission vide order dated 29.10.2015 allowed the Appeal with the following observations: -

  “There is no dispute regarding the fact that the complainant applied for allotment of house under G-2-B category in Nov, 2011 Scheme of the Opposite Party.

  There is also no dispute regarding the fact that the Complainant was put in G-2-A category instead of G-2-B G-2-B category by the Opposite Party.

  In the present matter only point of dispute is that because of mistake of the Opposite Party the complainant has been put in G-2-A category instead of G-2-B category in which there is no fault of the O.P. and there is no provision for giving information to the Complainant. It is also the contention of the O.P. that instructions were given to the applicant at the time of filing the application that the Board would be issuing the temporary list of the eligible applicants in the newspaper and any objections/corrections in that regard will be accepted till a particular date. The Complainant did not file any objection till the said decided date. The temporary list was publish in the Dainik Navjyoti newspaper on 10.1.2012. Therefore the Complainant did not fulfill his own duty.

  It is the contention of the learned counsel for the complainant that no information regarding change of the category as mentioned in the application as given to the complainant. At the time of filing the application it was instructed that the temporary list of the applicant would be published in the newspaper, however till the decided date no such publication took place. The Complainant has filed true copy of the newpaper Dainik Navjyoti dated 10.1.2012. In the said newspaper, no list has been published by the O.P. In such situation, the O.P. has not just changed the category of the Complainant but has also stated wrong facts in the reply which is a serious deficiency of service on part of the O.P. When the O.P. did not publish the temporary list then how could the complainant file his objection.

  In such circumstances, the appeal of the appellant is accepted and the O.P. is directed to pay Rs. 50,000/- compensation for mental agony, Rs. 10,000/- as cost of litigation totalling to Rs. 60,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint.  The O.P. should filed pay the entire sum to the Complainant and then recover the entire amount of compensation and cost from the then responsible officer/employee.”

(Extracted from translated copy)

7.      Dissatisfied by the Impugned Order dated 29.10.2015, the Petitioner/Opposite Party filed the instant RP No. 542 of 2016.

8.      The petitioner/Complainant in the present case has raised several grounds in the petition:

a) The State Commission allowed the Appeal only on the ground that the publication of the notice did not take place as stated in the Reply before the District Forum.

b) The State Commission failed to consider that the Notice regarding the Temporary List was published in the Newspaper on 27.12.2011. Due to a typographical error the date of publication of the notice was stated to be 10.01.2012 instead of 27.12.2011.

c) The State Commission failed to note that the notice in the newspaper was in fact published on 27.12.2011 and the Temporary List was published on 10.01.2012. The State Commission confused the date of publication of notice with that of publication of the Temporary List and allowed the complaint as there was no notice in the newspaper on 10.01.2012.

d) There cannot be dispute on the point that the publication has actually taken place on 27.12.2011 (a copy of which is on record). And once the publication has taken places in the newspaper, the reasoning given by the learned State Commission falls apart that no publication took place and therefore there is deficiency in services.

e)  As per instructions, in the Application form itself it was stated that a Temporary List would be published, and any application who has any objection with regard to the temporary list would be entitle to file the objection within the stipulated time period.

f) As per the Application form, the duty was cast upon the Respondent to bring to the notice of the Petitioner any discrepancy in the Temporary List published by the petitioner before the last date.

g)        The Respondent failed to fulfil his own duties and was himself negligent as he did not raise any objection even when he was shown under G2A category in the Temporary List. Therefore, the Respondent was himself negligent and no deficiency on the part of the Petitioner.

9.      Upon receiving notice of the instant Revision Petition, the Respondent No.1/Complainant filed written submission and asserted the order of State Commission.  The Respondents No.2 and 3 namely P.M. Dingarwal and Dinesh Nag were deleted from the array of the parties vide order dated 07.08.2019

10.    The learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Opposite Party, in his arguments, reiterated the grounds stated in the revision petition and emphasized the contention that the notice in the newspaper, namely, Dainik Navjyoti was purblished on 27.12.2011 and because of a typographical error the date of publication of the notice was stated to be 10.01.2012 instead of 27.12.2011. However, the Temporary List was published on 10.01.2012. Therefore, he prayed for the revision petition to be allowed and set aside the order of the State Commission and upheld the order of the District Forum.

11.    In his arguments, the learned Counsel for the Respondent/ Complainant reiterated the findings of the State Commission and argued that as no publication notice was published on 10.01.2012, the Petitioner/Opposite Party was deficient in service. He sought to dismiss the Revision Petition with cost. There is no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the State Commission, and the present Revision Petition is devoid of merit.

12.    I have examined the pleadings and associated documents placed on record and rendered thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsels for both the parties.

13.    The main issue of the case revolves around whether any notice published in the newspaper, namely, Dainik Navjyoti for raising any objection regarding the temporary list to facilitate raising of reservations/ objections by the Applicants.

14.    In the present case, it is established that the notice for raising objections was duly published in the newspaper "Dainik Navjyoti" on 27.12.2011, as evidenced by the copies on record. Although there was a typographical mistake in mentioning the date of notice publication as 10.01.2012 in the Reply filed before the District Forum, this mistake was acknowledged by the Petitioner/Opposite Party. The correct date of notice publication was 27.12.2011. Therefore, the finding of the State Commission that the Petitioner/Opposite Party was deficient in service due to this typographical mistake is considered untenable.

15.    In view of the foregoing discussions, the impugned order dated 29.10.2015 in Appeal No.1044/2012 passed by the State Commission is set aside and the Order dated 18.07.2012 in C.C. No.212/2012 passed by the District Forum is upheld.

16.    Consequently, the Revision Petition No.542 of 2016 is allowed.

17.    There shall be no orders as to costs.

18.    All pending Applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.