PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER

          Both these revision petitions arise out of one order of State Commission, hence, decided by common order.

2.      R.P. No. 4422 of 2012 has been filed by the petitioner/complainant and R.P. No. 4814 of 2012 has been filed by OP/petitioner against the order dated 1.10.2012 passed by Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in Appeal No. 1483 of 2006 by which, while allowing appeal, order of District Forum dismissing complaint was set aside and complaint was allowed.

3.      Brief facts of the case are that complainant/petitioner booked house in scheme advertised by OP on 20.3.1981 in Alwar.  Lottery was drawn on 23.3.1992 and complainant was allotted house in N.E.B. Scheme of the Housing Board at Alwar.  Initially, he was to be allotted complete constructed house, but  OP vide letter dated 23.11.1992 informed complainant that possession of skeleton house will be given.  Complainant denied receipt of aforesaid letter, but submitted that as per information given by friends, complainant gave consent for taking possession of skeleton house on 31.10.1995 and asked for total price of the house.  On 19.3.1997, allotment letter was issued by OP in favour of complainant with details of rates and amount to be deposited.  Complainant requested for adjustment of seed money and OP issued fresh allotment letter on 6.10.1997 in which price of land was calculated of the year 1993 and construction price was calculated of the year 1996.  Complainant made representations for calculating price of land and construction of the year 1992, but in vain.  Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum, Jaipur in 1998.  Learned District Forum dismissed complaint vide order dated 26.11.2001 on the ground of territorial jurisdiction.  Complainant again filed complaint before District forum, Alwar alleging deficiency on the part of OP.  OP resisted complaint and submitted that allotment letter had already been cancelled on 31.7.1998 and prayed for dismissal of complaint.  Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties dismissed complaint.  Complainant filed appeal before State Commission and learned State Commission vide impugned order allowed appeal and directed OP to issue fresh allotment letter with direction to charge price of land and construction of the year 1992 and further directed to charge simple interest as fixed by RBI from 19.3.1997 and further granted  Rs.50,000/- compensation for mental and physical agony and Rs.25,000/- as cost for litigation against which, both parties filed these revision petitions.

4.      Heard complainant in person and learned Counsel for the OP finally at admission stage and perused record.

5.      Complainant submitted that he is not challenging order of State Commission to the extent of price of land, but submitted that as skeleton house has converted into debris, order of State Commission directing to charge price of skeleton house is not proper which may be set aside.  On the other hand, leaned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is contrary to law as allotment had already been cancelled; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside.

6.      Learned State Commission after elaborate discussion rightly observed that price of land and construction for the year 1992 is to be charged.  As complainant agreed to take skeleton house and OP incurred cost in construction of skeleton house, order of State Commission directing to charge price of skeleton house of the year 1992 cannot be said to be unreasonable or illegal. Merely because skeleton house might have turned into debris, OP cannot be directed to remove debris and charge only price of plot and in such circumstances, revision petition filed by the complainant is liable to be dismissed.

7.      As far revision petition filed the OP is concerned, merely because allotment has been cancelled vide letter dated 31.7.1998, it cannot be held that complainant no more remains consumer of the OP.  Complainant applied for house in the year 1981, which could not be constructed by OP even upto 1997 and allotment letter was issued by OP first time on 19.3.1997. Complainant rightly submitted representation and OP again issued fresh allotment letter on 6.10.1997, but calculated price of land of the year 1993 and price of construction of the year 1996 which was apparently not proper.  When no construction was raised after 1992 and OP intimated complainant to take possession of skeleton house vide letter dated 23.11.1992, there was no occasion for OP to charge cost of skeleton house of the year 1996 and learned State Commission rightly asked OP to charge construction cost of the year 1992.  In such circumstances, revision petition filed by the OP is also liable to be dismissed.   

8.      Consequently, R.P. No. 4422 of 2012 – Madan Lal Sunger & Anr. Vs. Rajasthan Housing Board (Alwar) & Anr. filed by the complainant/petitioner and R.P. No. 4814 of 2012 – Rajasthan Housing Board (Alwar) & Anr. Vs. Madan Lal Sunger & Anr. filed by OP/petitioner are dismissed at admission stage with no order as to costs.