Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/778/2017

Dharamveer Singh S/o. Shri Bhanwar Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Rajasthan Housing Board Thruoug Deputy Commissioner - Opp.Party(s)

Avinash

16 Aug 2017

ORDER

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

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 778/2017

 

Dharamveer Singh s/o Sh.Bhanwar Singh r/o GH-05/84 Sector 3 Bhiwari, Distt. Alwar.

Vs.

Rajasthan Housing Board, Alwar through Dy. Commissioner.

 

Date of Order 16.8.2017

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

 

Mr.Avinash Vashishtha counsel for the appellant

 

 

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

 

This appeal has been filed against the order passed by the District Forum, Alwar dated 1.6.2017 whereby the claim has been dismissed.

2

 

The contention of the appellant is that he had not deposited the money as there was a dispute about the title of the land between Bhim Singh, Ramswaroop and the respondent Housing Board and when Housing Board was not ready to deliver him possession the forfeiture of the money is not justifiable and claim should have been allowed.

 

Heard the counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgment .

 

There is no dispute about the fact that the appellant has not deposited 85% of the amount within 30 days of the allotment letter and reason has been stated that as the title was not clear he has not deposited the amount. The Forum below has rightly held that when money has not been deposited as per the condition of the auction the respondent was justified for cancellation of the bid and consequently the money has been forfeited.

 

The contention of the appellant is that as there was a dispute about the title between Bhim Singh, Ramswaroop and the Housing Board it was not obligatory on the part of the appellant to deposit the amount. The appellant want to raise a

3

 

question as regard to title of the property which question cannot be dealt with by the Consumer Forums. Hence, in view of the above that the appellant has not complied with the terms of the auction purchase the respondent has not committed any deficiency and claim has rightly been rejected.

 

In view of the above, there is no merit in this appeal not worth admission and stands rejected.

 

(Nisha Gupta) President

nm