Present         (1)      Nisha Nath Ojha,   

                              District & Sessions Judge (Retd.)                                                                               President

                    (2)      Smt. Karishma Mandal,

                              Member

                    (3)      Anil Kumar Singh

                              Member

Date of Order : 19.11.2018

                    Nisha Nath Ojha

1. In the instant case the Complainant has sought for following reliefs against the Opposite party:-

1. To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 1,24,908/- as per the rate fixed on 06.06.1998 i.e. Rs. 1,70,000/- per Katha  as well as refund of excess amount paid by the complainant along with compound interest.
2. To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 2,50,000/- for mental agony and physical harassment as well as litigation cost.

2. The facts of this case lies in a narrow compass which is as follows:-

The complainant has asserted that she had applied for a price of land in 1995 to opposite parties which was situated in Bahadurpur, Patna having area of 1000 Sq. Ft. In 1996 she has also sent a reminder as will appear from annexure – 1. However, as per the guideline of the Board which was framed in the 187^th meeting of the board an order was passed in favour of complainant on 10.11.2001 by the then managing director but the decision dated 10.11.2001 by which the aforesaid land was allotted to the complainant by the then managing director was suppressed from the complainant for a long time for the reason best known to opposite parties.

It is further case of the complainant that after repeated request the aforesaid decision dated 10.11.2001 was communicated to the complainant vide memo no. 349 A dated 23.03.2004 and the complainant was directed to deposit Rs. 6,80,270/- by 31.03.2004. The complainant protested but deposited the aforesaid amount of Rs. 6,80,270/- and thereafter the opposite parties also forced to deposit interest on the aforesaid amount of Rs. 6,80,270/- which comes to Rs. 67,748/-.

The grievance of the complainant is that if the opposite parties communicated the decision of the managing director taken in the meeting of 10.11.2001 whereby and where under the land in question was transferred to the complainant at the rate prevalent at the time the matter would be different but the complainant deliberately suppressed the aforesaid fact and communicated the aforesaid order in 2004 and thus instead of Rs. 1,70,000/- per Katha the complainant has to pay Rs. 7,48,054/-.

The grievance of the complainant is that in 2001 she was required to pay Rs. 1,24,908/- but in 2004 she was forced to pay Rs. 7,48,054/- thus instead of Rs. 1,70,000/- per katha the opposite parties had realized the amount at the rate of Rs. 10,00,000/- per Katha.

On behalf of opposite parties written statement has been filed stating therein that the case is not maintainable because it has been held by the competent court that the charging of escalated price by the housing board does not fall within the meaning of service.

It has been stated that MIG Plot no. 1M/52 is situated at Bahadurpur, Patna was earlier allotted to Sri Ratan lal Jain and after final transfer on his request the said plot was transferred to the complainant vide board letter no. 321 AA dated 07.06.1994.

It has been further stated that the complainant vide her application dated 18.05.2001 made representation for allotting of the said adjacent plot. The executive engineer submitted a report vide letter dated 29.07.1999 and 03.10.2001 stating therein that the area of the aforesaid land adjacent to MIG plot no. 1M/53 is 20-50 feet and the then managing director allotted the aforesaid piece of land on 10.11.2001 and vide 200^th meeting the cost of 1000 Sq. Ft. land was assessed Rs. 5,85,605/- upto 31.12.2002. The complainant was informed vide letter dated 23.03.2004 to deposit sum of Rs. 6,80,270/- with interest till 31.03.2004 and the complainant did not deposit amount by 31.03.2004 but later on she deposited Rs. 4,00,000/- and Rs. 20,80,270/- on 20.10.2004 and as the complainant did not deposit the price in time hence the price was increased then she deposited Rs. 6,77,084/-.

The complainant has asserted in Para – 2 of the complaint petition that the then managing director had passed order on 10.11.2001 to transfer the land in question to the complainant. This fact has been admitted in Para – 9 of written statement of opposite parties.

From bare perusal of written statement it is stated that on 31.12.2002 the commercial value of the land was assessed as Rs. 5,85,605/- but on 23.03.2004 she was directed to deposit Rs. 6,80,270/- with interest by 31.03.2004. Thus, it is clear that the decision taken in 2001 was forced to comply in 2004. If the stand of opposite parties are taken to be correct then it is surprising that the opposite parties assessed the price of the aforesaid plot on 31.12.2002 as Rs. 5,85,605/- but no information was given to her and she was directed in 2004 to pay the price 6,80,270/- of the same plot. There is no explanation that under what circumstances the opposite parties did not act and informed the complainant about decision taken by the then managing director in 2001. There is no explanation as to why the decision taken on 31.12.2002 was not communicated to the complainant and the complainant was suddenly asked to pay the price at the increased rate of 2004 because even on 31.12.2012 the price of the aforesaid plot was assessed as Rs. 5,85,605/- but the complainant was forced to realize Rs. 6,80,270/- vide letter dated 23.03.2004. Thus the inactiveness of opposite parties has resulted in increasing the price. It is also crystal clear that even the price of 2002 was not communicated to the complainant so that she could have acted and deposited the amount of Rs. 5,85,605/- instead of Rs. 6,80,270/-.

In our opinion the aforesaid conduct of opposite parties have resulted in deficiency of service.

It goes without saying that as much time has been elapsed hence we think it proper not to pass order directing the opposite parties to return the extra increased price charged by them.

In our opinion the opposite parties have committed grave deficiency in not communicating the decision dated 10.11.2001 or 31.12.2012 of the board to the complainant so that she could have acted on time and the land would have been transferred to her on lesser price of 31.12.2012.

The aforesaid conduct of opposite parties has resulted in mental agony and harassment who being lady is pursuing this litigation since 2006.

However, we direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 3,00,000/- ( Rs. Three Lacs only) as compensation as well as litigation cost to the complainant for not communicating the order of the board dated 10.11.2001 or 31.12.2012 in time within the period of two month from the date of receipt of this order or certified copy of this order.

Accordingly, this complaint stands allowed to the extent referred above.

                                       Member                                 Member(F)                      President