Rajasthan

StateCommission

CC/59/2010

Santosh Kumar Hakim s/o J.M. Hakim - Complainant(s)

Versus

Rajasthan Housing Board Through Chairman - Opp.Party(s)

Rajesh Mootha

03 Aug 2015

ORDER

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

 

COMPLAINT CASE NO: 59/2010

 

Santosh Kumar Hakeem s/o J.M.Hakeem r/o 20/142 Kaveri Path, Mansarovar, Jaipur.

Vs.

Rajasthan Housing Board, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur through Chairman & ors.

 

Date of Order 3.8.2015

 

Before:

 

Hon'ble Mr.Vinay Kumar Chawla-Presiding Member

Mr. Liyakat Ali – Member

Mrs.Sunita Ranka-Member

 

Mr.Rajesh Mootha counsel for the complainant

Mr. Shiv Vyas counsel for the opposite party

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION

 

1. Brief facts giving rise to this complaint are that the

2

 

complainant applied for a house under the General Registration Scheme of the Rajasthan Housing Board in the year 1979 and had deposited a sum of Rs. 3000/- as registration money on 30.1.80. Receipt Ex. 1 was issued by the opposite party and on 29.10.80 a certificate of registration Ex. 2 was issued in favour of the complainant. In the year 1981 a general notice was published by the opposite party that under the changed rules now the complainant was entitled for a house under HIG category on payment of Rs. 7000/- as registration money. The complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 7000/- on 12.6.82 and the receipt Ex. 4 was issued in favour of the complainant. In the year 1983 the complainant was required to produce his attested signatures which were submitted vide Ex.6, 7 & 8. For thirteen years the complainant was not allotted any house. In the year 2007 the opposite party introduced a Self Finance Scheme under which the applicants who were registered in the year 1979 and were later converted to HIG category were entitled to participate in the scheme on payment of Rs. 1,90,000/- as registration money. The complainant applied under this scheme and vide letter dated 13.2.2008 Ex. 13 the complainant was informed by the opposite party that a flat in the multistorey building in Ramakrishna Appartment Scheme under the middle income group category was reserved for him. The opposite

3

 

party also congratulated him for his allotment and he was informed that for required payments he will be informed separately but vide their letter no. 1086 dated 18.6.2008 Ex. 14 the opposite party informed the complainant that his allotment in Ramakrishna Appartment Scheme has been rejected on the ground that his original registration was cancelled by the opposite party and vide letter dated 28.6.2008 Ex. 15 the amount of Rs. 1,90,000/- deposited by him was returned to him.

 

2. The opposite party filed its reply and they had stated that the original registration of the complainant was cancelled vide letter no. 484 dated 21.6.2000. They further submitted that the complainant was required to deposit first installment of Rs.35,000/-, second installment of Rs.35,000/- and third installment of Rs.25,000/- as seed money within one, seven and thirteen months from 9.1.1997 respectively for which he was issued letter no. 184 dated 9.1.97. As the complainant failed to deposit the seed money his original allotment was cancelled. The opposite party further stated that as the complainant was allowed to participate in the Self Finance Scheme on the basis of basis of registration of 1979 and later on when it was found that his registration had been cancelled in the year 2000, his

 

4

 

reserved flat in the Ramakrishna Apartment was cancelled and the money was refunded.

 

3. The complainant has supported his averments by way of affidavit. We have heard the respective counsels of the parties.

 

4. The point for consideration in this complaint is whether original registration of the year 1979 of the complainant was cancelled and whether he was duly informed and whether the complainant had been issued letter dated 9.1.1997 for depositing the three installments of seed money.

 

5. The burden of proof for proving these averments were on the opposite party. The opposite party has admitted that the complainant was registered in the year 1979 and then his registration was converted into HIG category in the year 1982 and he had deposited the additional amount of Rs. 7000/- and the opposite party has also admitted that they were aware that the complainant had shifted to Gaziabad and some letters were sent to his Gaziabad address also.

 

6. Now the first question is whether the complainant was informed vide letter no. 484 dated 21.6.2000 that his

5

 

registration has been cancelled. The opposite party has not produced the copy of this cancellation letter and no acknowledgment has been produced. In para no. 7 of the reply the opposite party submits that registration was cancelled vide letter no. 484 dated 21.6.2000 while in para no.1 the opposite party submits that he was informed of the cancellation vide letter no.1086 dated 18.6.2008. None of office copies of these letters have been produced and it is also not proved through which mode these cancellation letters were sent to the complainant and on what address. Second point is whether the complainant was informed of the seed money vide letter dated 9.1.1997. No office copy of this letter has been placed on record. In the absence of any office copy or any other proof or affidavit, it cannot be believed that complainant was asked to deposit the seed money in three installments. There is also no record once the seed money was not deposited by the complainant any reminders were issued to him or not. It is not possible that opposite party possess no record of intimation of cancellation, intimation of seed money and reminders sent to the complainant. When in the year 2008 the complainant was allowed to participate in the Self Finance Scheme in Ramakrishna Appartment, it was only on the basis of his

 

6

 

registration of 1979. The opposite party had allowed the pending applicants of 1979 to participate in this scheme and the complainant also submitted and participated in the scheme and was successful and a flat was also reserved for him in this scheme but the cancellation of this reservation after four months has no logical reason or explaination on the part of the opposite party.

 

7. On the basis of record placed before us, we are of the view that the complainant was not informed of the cancellation of his original registration nor any intimation to deposited the seed money was sent to him is proved. No reminders were issued to him. Thus, the complaint deserves to be allowed and the opposite party is directed to allot him a flat in Ramakrishna Appartment Scheme. In case of non-availability in this scheme, the opposite party is directed to allot a similar flat in some other scheme on the terms and conditions and cost prevailing in the year 2008. The complainant will deposit all the cost and other amounts as demanded by the opposite party. The order will be complied with within two months.

 

8. Since we have ordered that the complainant be allotted flat on the cost prevailing in the year 2008, this will cover the

7

 

compensation for mental agony and cost of prosecution for the complainant as the prices after 2008 has been marketedly escalated. The complaint is allowed as above.

 

 

(Sunita Ranka) (Liyakat Ali ) (Vinay Kumar Chawla)

Member Member Presiding Member

 

nm