Per Mrs. M. Shreesha, Member

          For the reasons cited in the Affidavit the delay of 45 days is sufficiently explained  and is condoned.

2.       Aggrieved by the order dated 23.08.2018, passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (in short “the State Commission) in Complaint No. 149 of 2015, Rajasthan Housing Board (hereinafter referred to as “the Housing Board”) preferred this First Appeal under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act (in short “the Act”). By the impugned order, the State Commission has allowed the Complaint directing the Housing Board to set aside the cancellation of the Complainant’s registration dated 18.12.2014 and to allot a house as per the seniority of 1982 together with compensation of ₹5,00,000/- for mental agony and ₹50,000/- towards costs. Interest @ 9% p.a. was also awarded from the date of filing of the Complaint till the date of realisaiton.

3.       The facts in brief are that the Housing Board launched a General Registration Scheme in the year 1982 (hereinafter referred to as “ GRS 1982”) for allotment of flats of various categories based on the income group and invited Applications with two modes of payment that is Higher Purchase Basis and Outright Sale Basis, wherein the allotment was to be made by way of a draw of a lottery. The Complainant applied for HIG category house and deposited the registration amount of ₹10,000/- vide Application Form No. 77153 dated 29.12.1982. The Housing Board fixed the priority of the Complainant and issued a reservation letter No. 3341dated 26.03.1991 demanding seed money of ₹50,000/-. The Complainant deposited the first installment of ₹25,000/- on 25.04.1991. On 01.08.1991, the Complainant issued an Allotment Letter requesting to allot the house as he was declared unsuccessful in the earlier lottery. Subsequent to the Registration and the receipt of the reservation letter, the Complainant did not get any response from the Housing Board. It was only on 29.12.1993 that the Complainant received a letter from the Housing Board seeking consent with respect to Self Financing Scheme. It is averred that on receipt of the said letter the Complainant submitted his objections on 12.01.1994 stating that he had never given his consent for Self Financing Scheme. It is pleaded by the Complainant that at the time of Registration, the Complainant’s erstwhile address was Porwal Sadan, Station Road, Jaipur, which has now been changed as 45-A, Sanjay Marg, Hathroi, Jaipur and for correspondence this new address was requested to be recorded. This letter was sent through registered post  and receipt of which was acknowledged. Thereafter, despite several demands made by the Complainant there was no response from the Housing Board regarding the allotment of the house. Subsequently, the Complainant was informed orally that his allotment was cancelled and on 20.04.2012 the Complainant gave a detailed representation mentioning all the facts and circumstances of the case and enclosed all the relevant documents. Representation was also made to the President of the Housing Board. Thereafter, the Complainant was given a direction to file an Application, which he had complied and submitted the Application on 18.09.2012. A letter dated 03.06.2013 was issued to the Complainant calling for KYC details which was also complied with. It is averred that despite informing the Housing Board about the new address vide letter dated 12.01.1994, the Complainant did not receive any  information or correspondence. Subsequently, it was only on 26.06.2013 the Housing Board resumed registration bearing No. P-134/HIG/G-2/HP/82 and in the letter it was specifically mentioned that the Complainant’s priority was also resumed.

4.       It is averred that on 17.07.2013, the Complainant sent the Application for transferring the allotment in the name of his son and made all the necessary payments and completed the formalities, which was accepted by the Housing Board vide office order No. 8479 dated 19.07.2013. To the Complainant’s surprise, during the course of the said proceedings a letter was received by him that his priority would be taken  from the year 2013. When the Complainant protested, on 11.09.2013 the Housing Board addressed a letter to the second Complainant that the letter dated 17.07.2017, by which the Registration was resumed, was cancelled. While so, the Housing Board floated a Self Financing Scheme in the year 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “SFS 2013”), which was a second phase and was exclusively for earlier registered Applicants. Under the SFS 2013  allotment of houses in Sector 8 and 22 at Pratap Nagar in Jaipur city was to be done. A demand was made for ₹5,37,000/-, which was paid and it is averred that the Complainant completed all formalities on his behalf. Thereafter, suddenly, vide letter dated 18.12.2014 the registration was cancelled without giving any reasons. Hence,  the Complainant approached the State Commission seeking direction to the Housing Board to allot the HIG House to the Complainant as per the priority of 1982 and set aside the order dated 18.12.2014, through which the registration of the Complainants was cancelled together with compensation, costs and other reliefs.

5.       The Housing Board filed their Written Version stating that after the Complainant was declared unsuccessful in the earlier lottery draw organized by the Housing Board after the Board received first installment of the seed money under GRS 1982 scheme. It was noted by the Housing Board that the Complainant failed to deposit the second and third installments of the seed money as per the reservation letter and therefore the Board issued a letter No. 7604 dated 29.12.1993 intimating the Complainant to submit the third copy of challan and informed him  to apply for a loan from the financial institutions as per the amended procedure  of the Board. It was averred that the Board was not in a financial position to construct the houses on a Higher Purchase Basis and informed the Complainant to opt for the Self Financing Scheme. While so, on 12.09.1994 the Complainant had written a letter that he was not ready for obtaining any loans from financial institutions and wanted to continue with his option of Higher Purchase Scheme. The Housing Board issued the allotment letter No. 3932 dated 27.05.1994 allotting house No. 94/23 in the lottery organized on 07.01.1994. As per the revised procedure of the Board the entire amount was demanded from the Complainant. Revised allotment letter No. 387 dated 24.10.1994 allotting  the house on Higher Purchase mode as per the option given by the Complainant was issued with the direction to take the possession of the house within 30 days from the date of issuance of a letter. A letter dated 22.08.1995 was also sent to the Complainant demanding payment as per the allotment letter  No. 387, but the Complainant failed to deposit the said amount and therefore the cancellation letter dated 27.10.1995 was issued cancelling the allotment and instructions were also given to submit the fourth copy of the challan for processing the refund of the amount paid. Even then the Complainant did not respond for refund of his amount.

6.       Thereafter the Complainant filed Application for restoration of his registration on 18.09.2012, in response of which the Housing Board issued a letter dated 03.06.2013 requesting the Complainant to appear in person with all original documents and KYC documents. After processing the Application, the Board decided to restore the registration on the recommendation of the chairman of the Housing Board and intimated the Complainant vide letter dated 26.06.2013 requesting him to deposit the registration amount of ₹1,10,000/- after adjusting an amount of ₹10,000/- already deposited in the current registration amount of ₹1,20,000/-. The Housing Board issued a letter dated 17.07.2013 amending the earlier letter dated 26.06.2013 to the effect that registration will be given priority from the year 2013 instead of the earlier  registration and deleted the portion mentioned in the restoration letter  dated 26.06.2013. It is averred that this was an error which was corrected by the Housing Board.

7.       The Complainant deposited the entire registration amount of ₹1,10,000/- in compliance of the restoration letter of 26.06.2013 and also submitted an Application for transfer of the registration in the name of his son. The Housing Board allowed the Application for transfer of registration in the name of the second Complainant on 29.07.2013 vide office order No. 8749. Subsequently the Complainant filed an Application dated 05.092013 to the Housing Board to reinstate the registration at its original number instead of restoration from current year 2013. The Board allowed the representation of the Complainant and reinstated the registration at its original number by cancelling letter dated 17.07.2013, which was duly communicated to the Complainant vide letter dated 11.09.2013.

8.       The Housing Board launched the SFS 2013, in which the second Complainant applied on 11.01.2013 for HIG category house. The then Joint Secretary of the Rajasthan Government communicated the order dated 10.10.2014 passed by the Cabinet of Ministers for cancellation of 431 registrations, restored by the previous Government  in the last six months and accordingly the same was communicated by the Chief Estate Manager to the Deputy Housing Commissioner to cancel the registration of  all the applicants restored. Hence the Housing Board cancelled the registration of the Complainant vide letter dated 18.12.2014.

9.       While so, some of the aggrieved applicants out of 431 cancellations filed Civil Writ Petition No. 1494 of 2015 before the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court challenging the cancellation, which was restored by the previous Government. It is stated that thereafter the Complainant filed a Consumer Complaint before the State Commission.

10.     Based on the evidence adduced, the State Commission had allowed the Appeal to the extent indicated above.

11.     Learned Counsel appearing for the Housing Board vehemently contended that the State Commission failed to appreciate that the Writ Petition No. 1445 of 2015 was pending before the  Hon’ble High Court  and therefore the Consumer Fora cannot go into the issue which was already pending; that the Complainants are bound by the Rules and Regulations of the Board and the pricing and costing of the house cannot be challenged before the Consumer Fora; that the Complainant failed to deposit the seed money except the first installment as demanded  in the reservation letter; that the applicants are liable to pay the cost of the house at the time of allotment and not at the time of prevailing at the time of allotment and the State Commission has erred in granting relief contrary to the terms and conditions of the Scheme; that the Board works on no profit no loss basis and that the registration cancellation dated 18.12.2014 cannot be set aside by the State Commission as it is the Policy decision of the State Government and therefore there is no deficiency of service on their behalf.

12.     For the sake of brevity, the entire admitted facts are not being repeated. It is not in dispute that on 27.10.1995, the Complainant’s registration was cancelled and that the Complainant had informed on 12.01.1994 regarding the change of address through registered post, yet as can be seen from the material on record, this letter dated 27.10.1995 was sent to the Complainant’s old address. Thereafter on 26.06.2013, the cancelled the allotment of the Complainant was set aside and his priority was resumed as it stood in 1982 registration. It is also not in dispute that the allotment was transferred to the second Complainant who is the son of the first Complainant. Thereafter, SFS 2013 wherein the allottees of the year 1982 were to be allotted the house, suddenly in December, 2014 was cancelled. Some of the allottees of the 431 cancelled allottees, approached the Hon’ble High Court  and on 11.07.2017 a committee was constituted  to contemplate the 431 resumed registration. The State Commission has observed that at one point of time the registration was revised and he was asked to deposit ₹1,10,000/- and thereafter ₹5,37,000/-. It is observed from the material on record that despite the Complainant having informed the Housing Board about the change of address the communication was sent to the earlier address and for no fault of the Complainant he cannot be made to suffer. It is only on account of lapse of time that his allotment was cancelled and thereafter resumed and thereafter became the subject matter of the 431 allottees whose registration was resumed. Had the Complainant received the information on time he would have taken effective steps to complete the formalities and such a situation would not have arisen.
So far as the contention that the matter is pending before the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 1494 of 2015 titled as Deendayal Gupta Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. is concerned, there is nothing on record to show that the Complainant/ Respondent is a party in the said Civil Writ Petition and therefore the decision of the Hon’ble High court may not bind the Complainant/ Respondent. Further it is also not the case of the Housing Board that the Complainant is a party in the Civil Writ Petition. Hence, we are of the considered view that the Housing Board ought to allot the house as per the priority and rules which stood in the year 1982. We, however, find it a fit case to reduce the compensation from ₹5,00,000/- to ₹1,00,000/- awarded towards mental agony confirming the costs of ₹50,000/-  awarded by the State Commission. The interest  awarded by the State Commission additionally @ 9% p.a. on the  compensation amount is set aside .

13.     This Appeal is allowed in part, modifying the order of the State Commission to the extent indicated above. The statutory amount deposited by the Appellant stands transferred to the Legal Aid Account of this Commission.