Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/1072/2015

Secetary Rajasthan Housingh Board - Complainant(s)

Versus

Raghunandan Sharma s/o Bihari Lal Sharma - Opp.Party(s)

Rajesh Kumar Vashist

27 Oct 2015

ORDER

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

 

FIRST APPEAL NO:1072/2015

 

Secretary, Rajasthan Housing Board, Head Office, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur & ors.

 

Vs.

 

Raghunandan Sharma s/o Biharilal Sharma r/o H 4/229 Panchdev Mandir, Sardar Patel Marg, Jaipur.

 

 

Date of Order 27.10.2015

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs.Nisha Gupta- President

Hon'ble Mr.Vinay Kumar Chawla - Member

Mr. Kailash Soyal -Member

 

Mr.Rajesh Kumar Vashishtha counsel for the appellant

 

 

 

2

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION

 

This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 26.6.2015 of the District Forum,Jaipur 4^th, Jaipur by which the complaint of the respondent is allowed.

 

The only contention of the appellant is that a letter has been issued to the respondent to deposit the requisite money but it was never deposited with the appellant and hence allotment has been cancelled.

 

Per contra the contention of the respondent is that letter dated 10.1.1979 was never sent to him and never received by him and hence there is no infirmity in the impugned order.

 

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. Perused the impugned order as well as the original record of the case.

 

The only contention of the appellant is that letter dated 10.1.1979 was sent to the respondent and inspite of receipt of the letter he has not deposited the money and hence, his allotment has been cancelled but there is a specific finding of the District Forum that this letter was never sent to the

3

 

respondent and it has also been observed by the court below that on 15.2.2011 another letter was sent to the complainant which was received by him then there was no reason of non receipt of the letter dated 10.1.1979 by the respondent if ever it was sent to him and the District Forum has came with a finding that it was only dispatched and never sent to the consumer. Hence, it was not his duty to deposit the amount and on this pretext his allotment has been wrongly cancelled and the court below has rightly held that it was deficiency in service. There is no infirmity in the impugned order and in view of the above discussions this appeal has devoid of any merit and is hereby dismissed.

 

 

(Kailash Soyal) (Vinay Kumar Chawla) (Nisha Gupta)

Member Member President

 

nm