Rajasthan

StateCommission

CC/58/2014

Capt. K.B.Gupta s/o Lat. Shankar Lal Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Rajasthan Housing Board Jyoti Nagar Janpath - Opp.Party(s)

Self

08 Jul 2015

ORDER

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

 

COMPLAINT CASE NO: 58 /2014

 

Capt. B.K.Gupta s/o Late Sh.Shankar Lal Gupta r/o D-214, Bhaskar Marg, Kamal Apts. Flat no. 100, Ground Floor, Bani Park, Jaipur.

Vs.

Rajasthan Housing Board, Jyoti Nagar, Janpath, Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur & ors.

 

Date of Order 8.7.2015

 

Before:

 

Hon'ble Mr.Vinay Kumar Chawla-Presiding Member

Mr. Liyakat Ali - Member

 

Complainant present in-person

Mr.V.P.Mathur counsel for the opposite parties

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION

 

1. The main question for consideration in this complaint is

2

 

whether Rajasthan Housing Board ( Housing Board ) committed deficiency in service by delaying the possession of the house to the complainant for five and half years. Although the complainant has submitted this complaint running into 28 pages. On perusal of the complaint we find that most of the facts narrated in the complaint are not relevant. The complainant has levelled charges of corruption against various officials, bureaucrats and ministers. He has also alleged usurping of booked houses of the original allottees by the officials. We find that these allegations are outside the scope of this complaint and we do not wish to refer them exhaustively. The complainant has also alleged in the complaint that that construction of the house has not been made according to the plan. The construction is misalligned from its peripheral corners but the complainant has not adduced any evidence in support of this techenical flaw in order to draw any conclusion by us. The complainant has also alleged in the complaint that amenities promised by the RHB have not been provided and amenity blocks had been auctioned to the third parties for commercial use. The complainant has also not lead any evidence on this issue.

 

2. The complainant also alleged that house was delivered to

3

 

him in incomplete condition. There were no electric fittings and cabling roof and floors were not finished. Both rooms are without fittings and fixtures. Kitchen fixtures and fittings were missing from the construction. Quality of POP was poor and the wooden doors and windows were unfinished. They were without latches and handles.

 

3. The complainant had booked a house under the Raj Aangan Scheme of the RHB reserved for NRIs. On 13.5.2004 a cheque for Rs. 2,44,750/- i.e. 10% of the cost of the House No. S-54 was paid at the time of booking. The rest of the cost was to be paid in four instalments. The second instalment i.e. 22.5% of the sale price was to be paid within one month of the commencement of the construction of bungalow and balance three instalments each of 22.5% of the sale price was to be paid at the six months interval. As per the original agreement executed between the parties the possession was to be delivered within thirty months from the date of booking. However, the Housing Board was not able to deliver the possession within the promised period. The possession was handed over to the complainant on 30.5.2012.

 

4. The Housing Board in its reply has stated that land for

4

 

construction of these bungalows was not made available to it and it got the possession of the land only in the year 2011 and reservation letter was issued to the complainant reserving his bunfalow and possession was delivered within 30 months of this reservation. The Housing Board has come with the submission that when the land was not available for construction, they were unable to start construction. They have referred to the condition no. 8, 16 and 18 of the terms and conditions. Under condition no. 8 the Housing Board shall make allotment after receipt of full price alongwith lease money and other ancillary charges and thereafter the possession letter shall be issued. Under condition no. 16 of the agreement it has been agreed that the Housing Board shall endeavour the possession of the house to the intending allottees within 30 months of the date of reservation. Under condition no. 18 it has been agreed that in case there has been delay in allotment, the Housing Board shall pay solatium @ 6% p.a. on the amount paid by the intending allottees after expiry of the indicative delivery period.

 

5. The complainant has supported his complaint by way of affidavit attached to his complaint while the opposite party has filed affidavits of H.D.Mathur and K.L.Ninania controverting the facts of the complaint.

5

 

6. The complainant has filed written arguments running into 65 pages which again is reproduction of the facts enumerated in the comnplaint and the reply of the opposite party. In reply written arguments were also filed on behalf of the Housing Board.

 

7. The complainant was present in person and argued his case. We have heard the learned counsel for the Housing Board. As regards the allegations of usurpation of alleged bungalows by the bureaucrats, officials etc. we would like to mention that this allegation is not substantiated as the complainant was duly allotted and handed over the possession of the booked bungalow no. S-54.

 

8. As regards the allegation of the complainant that due to delay the prices and cost of construction has been escalated and he has suffered financial loss is also not substantiated. We would like to refer an order of the Housing Board dated 16.6.2007 in which it was decided that the allottees will be charged the cost which was decided at the time of booking. Thus, all the allottees including the complainant were charged the price which was fixed at the time of booking.

 

6

 

9. With regard to lack of amenities and incomplete construction and deficiency in fittings and fixtures, this allegation is also not been substantiated by any evidence. First of all the complainant was supposed to raise all these issues at the time of taking the possession. He was required to point out all the deficiency in construction or absence of fittings and fixtures at that time. The complainant has not placed on record the actual possession letter and the list of fixtures and fittings which were to be provided and have not been provided. In the absence of evidence of the complainant we have not been able to conclude in his favour on this point.

 

10. Now the main question is with regard to the delay. It is admitted that at the time of booking in the year 2004 the Housing Board promised the possession within 30 months of the reservation. The learned counsel for the Housing Board has argued that this bungalow was reserved for the complainant in the year 2011 when the construction had been completed and the possession was delivered within 30 months on 30.5.2012. The learned counsel has argued that 30 months cannot be said to be started from the date of booking. It is only after reservation of the bungalow that this period will commence. We have given our anxious consideration to this argument and we are unable to

7

 

accept the submissions of the learned counsel for the Housing Board. After booking there is no stage under the agreement for reservation of the bungalow. Initially the booking was for bungalow no. S-54 and 10% booking amount was received against that bungalow which means that this bungalow had been reserved for the complainant.

 

11. Now we go into the question of delay, we find that in the year 2005 the opposite party wrote a letter on 12.8.2005 to the complainant that since the land on which this bungalow was to be constructed was not in its possession, hence they will not be able to deliver this bungalow on cost prevailing at the time of booking. However, the opposite party vide its subsequent order dated 16.6.2007 retained the same cost prevailing at the time of booking. The construction of the bungalow could not be started for years after the booking and the complainant on his part made efforts to find out the reasons for this. He tried to obtain information under Right to Information Act and has also placed on file several newspaper cuttings which alleged dilatory practices of the Housing Board. The complainant also tried to obtain copies of the proceedings before the land acquisition officer. It is clear that when the opposite party advertised the scheme and invited applications for booking of these

8

 

bungalows, the land in question was not in the possession of the opposite party. Though a notification for acquiring this land had been issued but the land acquisition formalities have not been completed until the year 2008. The learned counsel for the opposite party has submitted that the possession of the land was given to the opposite party in the year 2011 whereas the information given to the complainant by the opposite party under Right to Information Act says that possession was given to the opposite party in the year 2008. Thus, the opposite party received the possession in the year 2008 and the construction in fact started in the year 2010 or 2011.These facts reveal apparent deficiency on the part of the opposite party. It received the booking amounts for the bungalows to be constructed on the land which was not in its possession or was not handed over to it. How could the Housing Board invite the applications and receive 10% of the booking amount when the land itself was under dispute. There were encroachments on this land and proceedings were pending before the land acquisition officer. For seven years the Housing Board played with the money received from the allottees and they were not properly informed of the state of affairs. We appreciate the efforts made by the complainant to collect and obtain the necessary information by his own efforts and exercise his legal right under

9

 

the Right to Information Act. Thus, on this point the complainant succeeds. There has been a delay of five and half years in delivering the possession and the complainant deserves to be compensated for this delay though he has not been able to prove other allegations of his complaint.

 

12. We allow this complaint. On the point of compensation though the learned counsel for the opposite party has placed reliance on condition no. 18 of the agreement but we feel that this is a case where the applicants were not informed of the actual position and the Housing Board received money without the land being in its possession. Condition no. 18 refers to the delay which is caused as a result of any legislation, order or rule where the Housing Board is unable to complete the house or to deliver the possession. In that case 6% solatium on the amount paid by the intending allottees is provided for but here it is a case where the opposite party had knowledge that the land had not yet been acquired and there were encroachments on the land ,inspite of this the opposite party started booking for this land and received money from the intending buyers. We direct that the complainant is entitled for interest @ 12% p.a. on the initial deposit of Rs.2,44,750/- from the date of payment to the date of

 

10

 

actual allotment letter issued by the Housing Board on 28.5.2012.

 

13. The complainant has prayed Rs. 62,000/- for maintenance and upkeep charges of his house, Rs. 92,483/- for maintaining incomplete house, Rs. 10 lakhs for not providing club facilities, Rs. 50,000/- for RTI applications, Rs. 12 lakhs for his period of joblessness, Rs. 4 lakhs for deficiencies in providing amenities. We disallow all these prayers as these are not relevant to this complaint. The complainant shall be entitled to receive Rs. One lakh for mental agony and sufferings undergone by him.

 

The complaint is allowed as above.

 

 

(Liyakat Ali ) (Vinay Kumar Chawla)

Member Presiding Member

nm