Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/416/2015

Rajasthan Housingh Board Through Housingh Engineer - Complainant(s)

Versus

Pradeep Kumar Sharma s/o Shrikishan Sharma - Opp.Party(s)

Prateek Sharma

27 Jul 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1 FIRST APPEAL NO: 416/2015 Rajasthan Housing Board through Housing Engineer, Vaishali Nagar, Ajmer & ors. Vs. Pradeep Kumar Sharma s/o Shrikishan Sharma r/o Somnath Colony, College Road, Beawar, Ajmer. Date of Order 27.7.2016 Before: Hon'ble Mr.Vinay Kumar Chawla-Presiding Member Hon'ble Mr. Kailash Soyal - Member Mr. Prateek Sharma counsel for the appellant Mr.Vibhor Gaur counsel for the respondent BY THE STATE COMMISSION 2 This appeal has been filed against the judgment of learned DCF Ajmer dated 23.2.2015 by which the complaint was allowed. Brief facts are that the complainant had applied for a house under weaker section category and had deposited a sum of Rs. 5000/- as registration money on 31.12.2004 and on 4.9.2006 he had deposited Rs. 3000/- as pre-possession charges. After this the complainant submits that he did not receive any intimation about allotment from the opposite party. He wrote various letters and contacted personally but nothing was heard about the allotment. He filed a consumer complaint before the DCF. The opposite party submitted that a house was allotted to the complainant on 16.4.2008. The complainant failed to deposit the requisite amount and thus his allotment was cancelled on 2.9.2011. In rebuttal the complainant denied receiving any letter of allotment instead submitted his letters dated 6.9.2010, 5.8.2011 and 17.8.2011 in which he continuously asked the opposite party for allotment of his house.The learned DCF after considering the submissions of both sides and perusing the record concluded that complainant had not received any letter of allotment dated 3 16.4.2008. Letter if any was not sent on proper address and might have been received back by the Housing Board, it held that service of this letter cannot be presumed. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that Housing Board has sent this alleged letter of allotment on his address at 2 Somnath Colony, Beawar while no location of Somnath Colony was mentioned. Where the Somnath Colony is situated is not mentioned on the envelope. Thus, there is every possibility that this letter was not served. On the other hand the learned counsel for the opposite party has submitted that in Beawar there is only one Somnath Colony and if the name of the road was not mentioned, it makes no difference and complainant had received the allotment letter. We have considered this argument and we are of the view that issue of allotment letter by the Housing Board is suspicious. As per rules they were to cancel the allotment if the amount was not deposited within one month of receipt of the allotment letter but for three years they did not take any action and they have not denied the letters which were sent by the complainant on 6.9.2010, 5.8.2011 and 17.8.2011. These letters bear acknowledgment of the opposite party. This 4 acknowledgment has not been denied or rebutted. There is another question that before cancelling the allotment normally the Housing Board issues one or two reminders giving an opportunity to deposit the amount with penalty but no such letters seems to have been issued to the complainant. Straight away by letter dated 2.9.2011 the allotment was cancelled. It was probably only after letter dated 17.8.2011 written by the complainant for allotment. The learned DCF has discussed the evidence in detail and we agree with the view taken by the learned DCF that allotment letter was not duly received or served by the opposite party to the complainant. The complainant waited for allotment all these years. We do not wish to interfere with the order passed by the learned DCF and the appeal is dismissed. (Kailash Soyal) (Vinay Kumar Chawla) Member Presiding Member nm