Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/703/2016

Rajasthan Housing Board Through Secretary - Complainant(s)

Versus

Navneet Narain Mathur s/o R.N.Mathur - Opp.Party(s)

P.S. Tomar

23 Feb 2017

ORDER

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

 

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 577/2016

 

Navneet Narayan Mathur s/o R.N.Mathur r/o 104/78 Vijay Path Mansarovar, Jaipur.

Vs.

Rajasthan Housing Board, Jyoti Nagar, Janpath, Jaipur through Secretary & ors.

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 703/2016

 

Rajasthan Housing Board, Jyoti Nagar, Janpath, Jaipur through Secretary & ors.

Vs.

Navneet Narayan Mathur s/o R.N.Mathur r/o 104/78 Vijay Path Mansarovar, Jaipur.

 

Date of Order 23.2.2017

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

Hon'ble Mrs. Meena Mehta -Member

2

 

Mr.D.M.Mathur counsel for the complainant

Mr.P.S.Tomar counsel for the Housing Board

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

 

Both these appeals have been filed against the common order hence, are decided by this single order.

 

The contention of the Housing Board is that the Forum below has ordered to allot the house on the prevailing rates of 6.4.2009 which is not justified as admittedly the possession letter was issued on 28.12.2011. Hence, the rate prevailing at that time should have been ordered and further contention is that issue regarding costing should not be entertained by the Consumer Forum.

 

Per contra the contention of the consumer is that in 1993 his name was not entered in the lottery hence, he should be allowed the house on the rates prevailing in 1993 and further independent house should have been allotted.

 

 

3

 

Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment as well as original record of the case.

 

There is no dispute about the fact that the consumer has applied for allotment of house and deposited Rs. 4100/- on 22.7.1982. Thereafter his category was changed from LIG to MIG-B. The Housing Board has contended that on 1.11.1993 the allotment letter was issued to him but as money was not deposited his registration was cancelled. Thereafter in 2008 the consumer again applied for an independent house in Mansarovar and on this application his registration was made and demand notice Anx. 10 was issued. Now the contention of the consumer is that rates of 1993 should have been charges hence, it was deficiency on the part of the Housing Board not to include his name in the lottery and letter dated 1.11.1993 was never dispatched to him. The Forum below was also of the view that letter dated 1.11.1993 was never dispatched to the consumer but thereafter the consumer has applied again for allotment of house in MIG-B category in Mansarovar vide Anx. 6 which was accepted and Anx. 10 demand note was issued and it clearly contains the narration that registration dated 1.11.1993 has been cancelled which was never objected by the

 

4

consumer. Hence, the contention of the consumer that rates of 1993 should have been applied has no substance.

 

The other contention of the consumer is that inspite of the demand note dated 6.4.2009 he was allotted house in December 2011 and delay in allotment is deficiency on the part of the Housing Board but in Anx.10 there is a specific narration that name of the registrants would be put to lottery and thereafter allotments would be made. Hence, the contention of the consumer is not acceptable.

 

Admittedly the allotment-cum- possession letter was issued to the consumer on 28.12.2011. Hence, the order of the Forum below to charge the rates prevailing on 6.4.2009 is not justified.

The contention of the Housing Board is that question of costing or price fixation is not subject to judiciary review and reliance has been placed on the judgment passed by the National Commission in Revision Petition No.1209/2016 Sudha Nagla Vs. Rajasthan Housing Board. There is no dispute about the above preposition but here question is not of costing or price fixation but question is that which rates should have been charged which is well within the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forums.

5

 

The consumer has placed reliance on IV (2015) CPJ 260 (NC) Multi Sahajaa Builders & anr. Vs. Chandra Bose K.V. where there was delay in handing over possession and defects in construction work which is not the case here. Further reliance has been placed on Revision Petition No. 2614/2007 Rajasthan Housing Board Vs. Gajanand Sharma where allotment was cancelled which is not the case here. Further reliance has been placed on IV (2015) CPJ 471 Rajasthan Housing Board Vs. Karuna Bohra where facilities were not provided as projected in the booklet which is not the case here.

 

Hence, in view of the above the appeal of the Housing Board is liable to be allowed partially and instead of rates prevailing on 6.4.2009 it is substituted by dated 28.12.2011. Rest of the order needs no interference. With this modification the appeal of the Housing Board is allowed and the appeal of the consumer is dismissed.

 

(Meena Mehta) (Nisha Gupta)

Member President

 

nm