Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/674/2015

Rajasthan Housign Board Through Secreatry K K Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mukesh Kumar Agarwal s/o Dr. C.S.Agarwal - Opp.Party(s)

S.C.Sethi

20 Jul 2016

ORDER

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

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 674 /2015

 

Rajasthan Housing Board, Head office, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur.

Vs.

Mukesh Kumar Agarwal s/o Dr.C.S.Agarwal r/o 30-A,Ramganj Bazar, Jaipur.

 

Date of Order 20.7.2016

 

Before:

 

Hon'ble Mr.Vinay Kumar Chawla-Presiding Member

Mr. Kailash Soyal - Member

 

Mr. S.C.Sethi counsel for the appellant

Mr.R.S.Dangayach counsel for the respondent

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION

 

This appeal u/s 27-A has been filed against the order

2

 

dated 7.5.2015 passed by the learned DCF Jaipur 2nd u/s 27 of the C.P.Act.

 

Brief facts are that the complainant had applied for a house in Low Income Group in the year 1979 with registration no. 61839. His registration was later on converted into MIG-B category in the year 1982.

 

The complainant alleged that all the applicants have been allotted houses in the year 1984-85 but he has not been still allotted any house. He filed a consumer complaint for allotment of house under MIG -B category.

 

The opposite party (Rajasthan Housing Board) did not oppose the complaint and did not file any reply before the DCF and consented to allot him a house. This consent of the opposite party was recorded in the ordersheet dated 26.10.2002. The opposite party had agreed to issue demand for seed money within two months and thereafter allotment will be made. On this undertaking of the opposite party the complaint was decided.

 

3

 

In the year 2004 the complainant was allotted a house no. 73/273 but possession was not given and it is stated that lottery held in the year 2004 was cancelled.

 

The complainant further stated that all the successful applicants of the lottery in the year 2004 were allotted houses in a subsequent lottery held in the year 2007 but complainant was still not allotted any house.

 

On 22.11.2010 the complainant was allotted a MIG-B flat no. 79/150 A.

 

The complainant filed an application u/s 27 of the C.P.Act for non-compliance of the order of the learned DCF. After hearing both the parties the learned DCF found that complainant was entitled for allotment of an independent house and not flat on the price prevailing in the year 2007.

 

This order has come under challenge before us. The counsel for the Housing Board has argued that the executing court cannot go beyond the decree and he has relied upon IV (2011) CPJ 64 (NC) Universal Motors Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Kanpur

4

 

Development Authority. He has also relied upon I (2015) CPJ 776 (NC) Sunil Rastogi Vs. Jag Par Securities Ltd. in which it was held that executing court cannot go beyond the decree. He has also relied upon IV (2010) CPJ 377 (NC) Corporate Communication System Vs. Mahesh Chaudhary and order of this Commission in Appeal No. 920/2015. However, this judgment related to pricing. On the basis of these judgments the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned DCF was not right in ordering that price prevailing in the year 2007 will be charged from the complainant as the pricing issue is outside the scope of jurisdiction of the DCF.

 

The learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon I (2014) CPJ 473 (NC) Delhi Development Authority Vs. D.C.Sharma in which the punitive damages were awarded to the successful allottee who was harassed for 18 years by Delhi Development Authority.

 

The first question is whether the complainant can be allotted either a house or flat. The learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to the application form in which house/flat has been mentioned. On the basis of this he

5

 

submits that either a house or flat can be allotted. On this issue we do not agree with the submissions of the learned counsel and we agree with the conclusion of the learned DCF that an independent house and flat are two different things. On this question we have to go to the relief sought by the complainant in his complaint. In the complaint he had prayed for allotment of a house. The opposite party Housing Board did not file any reply and accepted all the allegations of the complaint and agreed to allot him a house. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant that all the allottees who were allotted house in lottery of 2004 which had been cancelled were subsequently allotted independent house in the year 2007 and even the applicants who stood below in the priority of complainant were also allotted independent houses.

 

In view of these submissions we do not find any error in the order passed by the learned DCF. First the complainant had prayed for a house in his complaint and opposite party had agreed to allot him a house and they did not contest the complaint. Secondly, when all the applicants of 1984-85 have been allotted independent houses by the year 2007 and only the complainant has been left, the Housing Board is bound to

6

 

allot him a house. We do not find any illegality in the order.

 

So far as the question of allotment of the house on the price prevailing in the year 2007 is concerned, we do not think that the learned DCF has gone beyond the scope of decree in this matter. When all the applicants of the year 1984-85 have been allotted and given possession of the houses by the year 2007 and why the complainant was left has not been explained by the Housing Board. Because in the consent order dated 26.10.2002 no price has been fixed and the complainant was entitled to house at the price prevailing in the year 2002 still the learned DCF in its wisdom ordered that when rest of the allottees of the same category have been allotted houses in the year 2007, the complainant is also entitled to get that house on the price prevailing in the year 2007. We do not wish to disturb these findings.

 

In view of this we do not find any error in the order passed by the learned DCF and the appeal is dismissed.

 

(Kailash Soyal) (Vinay Kumar Chawla)

Member Presiding Member

 

nm