Rajasthan

StateCommission

FA/537/2014

Smt. Leela Gupta W/o Sh. Pramod Kumar Gupta Through At Present Swami Ikrarnama House Ni. 77/198, Mansarovar, Jaipur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Rajasthan Housing Board, Through Estate Manager - Opp.Party(s)

Umesh Nagpal

28 Apr 2015

ORDER

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

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 537 /2014

 

Smt.Leela Gupta w/o Pramod Gupta r/o House No. 75 Gopal Nagar, Gopalpura Bypass, Jaipur

Vs.

Rajasthan Housing Board,Mansarowar, Jaipur through Estate Manager & ors.

 

Date of Order 28.4.2015

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mr.Vinay Kumar Chawla-Presiding Member

Mrs.Sunita Ranka -Member

Mr.Kailash Soyal- Member

 

Mr.Umesh Nagpal counsel for the appellant

Mr.Rajesh Kumar Vashishtha counsel for the respondents

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION

 

This appeal has been filed against the judgment of learned

 

2

 

DCF Jaipur 3^rd dated 4.4.2014 by which it dismissed the complaint.

 

Brief facts giving rise to this dispute are that one Sh.Bhoop Singh has applied for registration of a house with the Rajasthan Housing Board with initial deposit of Rs.6,000/-. On 6.11.93 vide letter number 5760 the Housing Board reserved a house for Bhoop Singh and he was to required to deposit first instalment of seed money of Rs.15,000/- which was deposited by Bhoop Singh on 28.10.99. Bhoop Singh agreed to sell his House No. 77/198 Mansarowar Scheme, Jaipur to one Sh.J.P.Mathur and J.P.Mathur further agreed to sell this house to the present complainant Smt.Leela Gupta vide agreement Ex.1. Smt.Leela Gupta filed a consumer complaint against the Housing Board stating that possession of the house has not been handed over to her as she is the buyer of this house. The Housing Board filed a written reply before the learned DCF stating that allotment of house to Bhoop Singh has been cancelled on 31.7.99 as he failed to deposit the amount with interest. The learned DCF accepted the submission of the Housing Board and had also concluded that Leela Gupta does not get any right by virtue of agreement Ex.1 & 2. It dismissed the complaint.

 

3

 

The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that no notice of cancellation of allotment was received by Bhoop Singh. The Housing Board has stated that the allotment was cancelled on 31.7.99 while the Housing Board had received an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from Bhoop Singh on 31.8.99 by way of demand draft. The learned counsel for the appellant has also prayed that leave may be granted to Bhoop Singh to file a fresh complaint.

 

The learned counsel for the Housing Board has refuted the contentions. He has stated that the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was deposited directly into the bank without informing the Housing Board and it will not create any right in favour of Bhoop Singh. The allotment stands cancelled on 31.7.99.

 

We have heard the respective counsels.We are of the view that the complainant Leela Gupta is not a consumer of the Housing Board and she had no right to file a consumer complaint against the Housing Board for not handing over the possession to her. The agreement Ex.1 and 2 shows that Bhoop Singh had sold the registration of his house as no possession had been taken by him till that date. Under the terms and conditions of allotment an applicant has no right to transfer his registration to some other person without permission of the Housing Board. Transfer of

4

 

registration to J.P.Mathur and Leela Gupta was never informed to the Housing Board. Hence, no relationship of consumer and service provider has been established between Leela Gupta and the Housing Board and the complaint has been rightly dismissed by the learned DCF.

 

As regards cancellation of the allotment in favour of Bhoop Singh by the Housing Board is concerned, we do not wish to delve on this point. The allotment is said to have been cancelled on 31.7.99 & at the same time Housing Board had received a demand draft of Rs.1,50,000/- towards balance cost of this house on 31.8.99. This dispute is between Bhoop Singh and the Housing Board which cannot be subject matter of this complaint. Bhoop Singh will be free to exercise his right under the law. The appeal is dismissed.

 

 

Member Member Presiding Member

 

nm