Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/454/2015

Naresh Chand Gupta s/o Late Shree Adityendra - Complainant(s)

Versus

Rajasthan housing Board Through Diptty. Housing Commission - Opp.Party(s)

Raj Kumar Tongawat

01 Jun 2016

ORDER

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

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 454/2015

 

Naresh Chand Gupta s/o Late Sh.Adityendra r/o R-12, Yudhister Marg, C-Scheme,Jaipur through power of attorney

Vs.

Rajasthan Housing Board through Housing Commissioner,Janpath, Jaipur & ors.

 

APPEAL NO: 270/2015

Rajasthan Housing Board through Housing Commissioner,Janpath, Jaipur & ors.

Vs.

Naresh Chand Gupta s/o Late Sh.Adityendra r/o R-12, Yudhister Marg, C-Scheme,Jaipur

 

Date of Order 1.6.2016

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

Hon'ble Mr.K.K.Bagri-Member

Mrs. Sunita Ranka -Member

2

 

Mr. Himanshu Agnihotri & Mr.R.K.Tongawat counsel for the complainant

Mr. Shiv Vyas counsel for the Rajasthan Housing Board

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

 

Both these appeals have been filed against the judgment of the learned DCF, Jaipur ^2nd dated 28.1.2015 hence, are decided by this common order.

 

This is third round of litigation between the parties. The facts narrated by the consumer appellant are that in 1982 the appellant consumer applied for house in the residential scheme at Bhiwadi Distt. Alwar and the amount of Rs. 4600/- were paid on 30.12.1982. He applied for the house under category MIG-B. The Housing Board did not allot the house to the appellant consumer where as other similar applicants were allotted house in MIG-B category in the year 1985. Thereafter in 1987 Housing Board allotted a house to the consumer at Alwar instead of Bhiwadi and on objection the Housing Board rectified their record and included the name of the consumer in

 

3

 

the applicant list of Bhiwadi but he has been allowed priority of 1987 instead of 1982. Thereafter on demand of the Housing Board consumer paid instalment. In the year 1999 it has been informed that no house is available in the category of MIG-B. Then consumer applied for change of category from MIG-B to HIG and on 30.6.1999 he was allotted house no. 4/21 Housing Colony, Bhiwadi and he was asked to deposit Rs. 9,17,115.35. Consumer raised objection as regard to the cost of the house but complaint was dismissed and so also the appeal. Thereafter on 17.8.2007 a letter was issued to the consumer which was answered by one of the tenant of the consumer as he was out of India and it was requested not to cancel the allotment but his allotment was cancelled vide letter dated 15.9.2007. The request for restoration was made. A complaint was also filed before the District Forum and vide judgment dated 4.4.2008 it was ordered that allotment should be restored within one month and thereafter on representation by the consumer a demand notice should be sent to the consumer alongwith interest as per rules. On 29.7.2009 the allotment was restored and Housing Board demanded the amount of Rs. 27,38,400/- and demanded the interest rate of 18% to 20%. Again a complaint has been filed which was allowed by the Forum below and ordered for only 12% interest. Hence, this appeal.

4

 

The contention of the consumer is that entire dispute was originated due to deficiency in service by the respondent. The Housing Board could not charge interest @ 18% or 20% as they are giving interest to the consumer @ 6% p.a. only on the amount deposited by the consumer and delay has been caused by the Housing Board alone. Hence, interest should be charged only at the rate of 6%.

 

The Housing Board came in appeal with the contention that interest has been demanded as per rules. Costing matters cannot be looked into by the Consumer Forum and interest is one of the component taken into consideration while determining the price of the house. The matter has already been decided by earlier order in complaint no. 1509/2007 decided on 4.4.2008 hence, cannot be re-visited.

 

Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment as well as original record of the case.

 

The facts narrated are not in dispute. The only issue is as regard to the rate of interest which has been ordered to pay. The contention of the Housing Board is that question of pricing

 

5

 

cannot be gone into by the Consumer Forum and interest is also one of the component to determine the price of the house and reliance has been placed on 1996 NCJ 200 Delhi Development Authority Vs. Kamini Chopra where it has been held that pricing of flat cannot be gone into by the Consumer Forum and interest is also one of the essential part to determine the cost of the house. There is no dispute about this preposition but here in the present case it is admitted case of the parties that initially only a demand of Rs. 9,17,115.35 was demanded and interest has been calculated only after the order of the Forum dated 4.4.2008. Hence, it cannot be said to be a question of pricing of the house.

 

The appellant consumer has rightly contended that when Housing Board is giving interest @ 6% p.a. to the consumer on the amount deposited by him, he cannot charge more than that and reliance has been placed on (2011) 6 SCR 1 Tamilnadu Housing Board Vs. The Service Society where only 9% interest is allowed. Further reliance has been placed on (2012) 12 SCC 213 Allottees Service Manager, Tamilnadu Housing Board Vs. R.Chinnathambi where 12% interest has been allowed. Further reliance has been placed on judgment passed in civil appeal no.

 

6

 

4436/2008 HUDA Vs. Rajsingh Rana where the court has held that the appellant has acted illegally in demanding interest at the higher rate and it has been further held that rate of interest should be fixed in the circumstances of each case after looking into the circumstances leading to a situation and it is the duty of the Consumer Forum to consider the circumstances of the case and keep in mind the provisions of Section 3 of the Interest Act. Facts of the case clearly speaks that without any fault of consumer he is persuing his claim since 1982 whereas his other co-applicants have been allotted house in 1985 and vide earlier order dated 4.4.2008 the Housing Board has been allowed to raise demand with interest as per rules and admittedly they have raised demand with 18%and 20% interest which is implicit from Ex. 13, demand notice dated 29.7.2009. No basis has been placed on record which gave entitlement to the Housing Board to charge 18 or 20% interest. It has been argued that rules provides 18% and 20% interest but no such rules have been referred. Hence, it could be concluded that the Housing Board has charged much higher rate than ordered by the District Forum and vide impugned judgment the Forum has allowed 12% interest where the Housing Board is giving only 6% interest on the amount deposited with them. Hence, looking

 

7

 

to the principles of equity, the Housing Board is also entitled for 6% interest only. Hence, the order is modified to the extent and instead of 12% interest the consumer is liable to pay only 6% interest and after calculating on the above rate of interest the Housing Board should issue a fresh demand notice.

 

Today,an application has been filed by the complainant-appellant to the effect that he has already paid Rs. 9,17,166/- on 14.2.2005 as per order of the District Forum. Hence, in view of the above the appellant consumer is obliged to pay only 6% interest on the cost of the house.

 

It has also been objected by the Housing Board that the Forum has unnecessarily ordered for the necessary repairs of the house but this contention has no merit as admittedly the house was allotted to the appellant consumer in the year 1999 and now the Housing Board would give possession of it to the complainant appellant. Hence, it goes without saying that house should be of inhabitable condition and the Forum has rightly ordered for necessary repairs.

 

In view of the above, the appeal of the Housing Board is

dismissed whereas the appeal of the consumer appellant is

8

 

allowed to the terms that Housing Board now within one month

will raise the demand only after laying 6% interest on the amount to be paid. Rest of the condition/order is confirmed.

 

( Sunita Ranka ) (K.K.Bagri) (Nisha Gupta )

Member Member President

 

 

nm