1. This Revision Petition No.1487 of 2019 challenges the order of the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (‘State Commission’) dated 26.02.2019. Vide this order, the State Commission dismissed FA No. 922/2018 and affirmed the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jaipur Second (‘District Forum’) order dated 05.09.2018. 2. As per the report of the Registry, there is a delay of 28 days in filing of the present Revision Petition. For the reasons stated in I.A. No.10542/2019, the delay is condoned. 3. For convenience, the parties are referred to as placed in the original Complaint filed before the District Forum. 4. Brief facts of the case, as per the Complainant, are that the complainant, a disabled person, had applied to the Rajasthan Housing Board (Opposite Party OP) in 1979 for a house under the disabled quota. He deposited the required registration amount and later two instalments, totalling Rs.12,000, towards the estimated cost of the house. On 18.08.1996, the OP allotted him Flat No. 80/269 on the first floor of a multistorey building, which came as a surprise to him, as he had registered under the disabled quota and was unable to climb stairs. He then requested an independent house, filing an application on 27.01.1997 due to his disability. In response, the OP cancelled the flat allotment and informed him on 24.11.1997 that an independent house would be allotted based on availability in Mansarovar. However, despite waiting for several years, he did not receive the allotment of an independent house. In 2014, the OP asked him to deposit Rs.2,06,180 in three instalments as part of a new estimate for an independent house. He issued a legal notice on 20.02.2015, arguing that despite the long wait, the OP failed to allot him an independent house at the 1997 rates, which constituted deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Aggrieved by this, he filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, seeking the allotment of an independent house of middle-income group 'B' at the 1997 rates, along with compensation for the delay and costs associated with the dispute. 5. In reply filed before the District Forum, the Petitioners/OPs admitted that the complainant had applied under disabled quota and was registered. A first-floor flat was allotted due to parking space constraints on the ground floor and that an independent house was not guaranteed. The complainant is not entitled to any refund and that the case was wrongly filed. 6. The learned District Forum vide order dated 05.09.2018, allowed the complaint and directed the Petitioners/OPs as under: “ORDER On the basis of aforesaid analysis dispute of the complainant is admitted against opposite parties and it is ordered that opposite parties to allot house No. 101/156 at the rates prevalent in 1997 according to Rules to the complainant in Pratap Nagar Sanganer scheme within one month from to-day. In addition to the above opposite parties have to pay to the complainant Rs.25000/- compensation and Rs. 10000/- cost of dispute, total Rs.35000/- (in words thirty five thousand rupees) within one month from today, otherwise the complainant shall beentitled to get 9 percent yearly interest from the date of to-day on aforesaid amount.” (Extracted from translated copy) 7. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the Petitioners filed an Appeal and the learned State Commission vide order dated 26.02.2019 dismissed the said Appeal with following observations: “Heard arguments and perused the file. Complainant was disable person. He got registration for house at ground level. Complainant made prayer to provide house at ground level. Which was accepted. Complainant was disable and the house was to be provided to him according to income group. House was lying vacant in Pratap Nagar Sanganer scheme and District forum ordered to allot the said house in Pratap Nagar Sanganer Scheme. There is not any type of error in this order. Appeal is liable to be dismissed and it is dismissed.” (Extracted from translated copy) 8. The learned counsel for Petitioners reiterated the grounds stated in the Revision Petition and argued that the first-floor Flat was allotted as per the building regulations, which did not allow ground-floor flats due to parking space requirements. The OP Board provides housing to citizens as per the schemes independently notified and accounted for and essentially operates on no profit and no loss basis. The lower fora erred in directing the allotment of an independent house at the 1997 rates and sought to allow the present Revision Petition and set aside the concurrent findings of the Fora below. 9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Respondent/ complainant argued in favour of concurrent findings of the fora below. He sought to dismiss the Revision Petition as infructuous, with costs. 10. I have examined the pleadings and associated documents placed on record, including the orders of the District Forum and the State Commission and rendered thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsels for both the parties. 11. It is revealed form the record that the architectural design of the project planned by the OP Housing Board contained parking at the ground floor and with residences commencing only from the first floor. As the complainant had certain challenges, he did not accept and sought allotment of an independent house. His cancellation request of the allotment was accepted by the OP Board vide letter dated 24.11.1997. However, it did not contain any assurance to him with respect to the consideration of future offer being at the same rate for which he sought the unit offered to him to be cancelled. In this regard, it is undisputed that the OP Board provides housing to citizens as per the schemes notified and accounted for and it essentially operates on no profit and no loss basis. It is also a matter of record that the OP Board issued a pre-allotment letter dated 03.09.2014 in the subsequent scheme of OP Board. As against the terms and conditions stated in the said pre-allotment letter dated 03.09.2014 the dispute arose. Therefore, if he wished to accept the offer, he was bound to adhere to the terms and conditions including consideration due to be paid with respect to such allotment. 12. Merely because he had earlier applied and did not accept the offer of allotment by the OP Board on the grounds of structural project design does not entitle him for any financial concessions in other schemes as claimed. The acceptance of his cancellation request of his previous allotment by the OP Board vide letter dated 24.11.1997 did not provide for any such concessions. Therefore, the complainant’s contention in this regard is untenable. In fact, allowing such concessions would entail other allottees of the same scheme paying more to OP Board to compensate such shortfall. 13. In view of the foregoing deliberations, it is evident that the learned District Forum vide order dated 05.09.2018 and the learned State Commission vide order dated 26.02.2019 have erred in due appreciation of facts and law. Accordingly, the order of the learned District Forum dated 05.09.2018 is modified as under: ORDER - The Opposite Party is directed to allot an independent house to the Complainant, if available at the rate applicable in the present time as per rules, within two months from the date of receipt of the order; Or/ alternatively
- The Opposite Party is directed to refund the amount paid by the Complainant along with simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of respective deposits till its realization, within a period of two months from this order. In the event of default, the rate of simple interest shall be @ 12% per annum for such extended period.
- The Opposite Party shall also pay the litigation cost of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant.
14. With the above directions, the Revision Petition No.1487 of 2019 is disposed of. 15. All pending Applications, if any, are also disposed of accordingly . | 
