1.       These revision petitions (03 nos.) have been filed under section 21(b) of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in challenge to the common Order dated 26.08.2014 of the State Commission in appeals no. 72, no. 74 and no. 75 of 2012 arising out of the Order dated 27.04.2012 of the District Commission in complaint no. 184 of 2008.

2.       Repeatedly called out. No one appears for the complainants (the petitioners herein). Learned proxy counsel is present for the housing board (the respondents herein), its learned counsel is not available.

It is seen that the complaints were filed in 2008, the District Commission passed its Order in 2012, the State Commission passed its Order in 2014, the instant revision petitions were filed before this Commission in 2014. And we are now in 2022.

Considering the sheer efflux of time, it is deemed appropriate to decide the matter on the basis of the record.

3.       Accordingly the record was perused, including inter alia the Order dated 27.04.2012 of the District Commission, the impugned Order dated 26.08.2014 of the State Commission and the petitions.

The matter essentially relates to escalation in cost in respect of houses allotted to the complainants by the housing board. Similar facts and same questions of law are involved in the three (03 nos.) petitions. As such they are being disposed of together vide the instant common Order.

4.       The District Commission vide its Order dated 27.04.2012 dismissed the complaints as ‘not maintainable’.

The State Commission vide its impugned Order dated 26.08.2014 dismissed the appeals as ‘bereft of worth’. Extracts of its appraisal are reproduced below for reference:

We are not satisfied with this contention of the learned counsel for the appellant as officially there is no order regarding conversion of hire purchase payment plan into down payment plan. In reality the payment demanded by the housing board vide its letter dated 12.9.2008 etc. are nearly due amount of the instalments. Because in 1996 the complainant after allotment of the houses filed writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court during this period they did not deposit in instalments. The Complainant now contends that they are not liable to pay interest and penal interest on this amount as the dispute was under consideration before the Hon’ble court. We are of the opinion that the complainant has not come with bona fides intent. There was dispute only with regard to the construction cost regarding which they approached the Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan through writ petition. The onus of depositing monthly installments as per the rules after allotment was on the complainant as there was no dispute with regard to the instalments before the Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan and even if they would have got any relief that would have been regarding the construction cost and not with regard to the instalments and during the time of this dispute was pending before the High Court it was the duty of the complainant to deposit the instalments as per rules. Had they got any relief with regard to the construction cost the housing board would have acted accordingly. The housing board which is a no profit no loss organisaiton, also for the purpose of its construction takes loans from bank and other financial Institute’s and it also has to pay interest on those amount. In such situation the complainant cannot be relived from its duty of payment of interest. In these complaints no sympathy can be made towards the complainants as for 12 years they have been litigating before the Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan and even thereafter they again have filed the present complaint alleging the same issues or stop they have not been demanded one-time payment of the house but the amount due form the instalments is being the recovered along with interest which the housing board is entitled to take.

Therefore in light of the aforesaid discussion there is no merit in the appeal of the appellants and the appeals are liable to be dismissed and is dismissed and the order dated 27.4.2012 of the district forum is upheld.

5.       The complainants had earlier filed writ petitions before Hon’ble High Court. The Hon’ble Court dismissed the petitions as not being maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution. It however granted liberty to seek remedy under the “general law”. Appeals filed before the division bench of the Hon’ble High Court were also dismissed.

6.       The actual root of the matter was that the tentative cost initially intimated by the housing board was subsequently revised upwards. This was in accordance with an express condition of allotment as well as with the housing board’s policy on the subject. There is nothing on record to show that the housing board acted in violation of any of its administrative, financial or technical rules. Pertinently, the housing board, a government development authority, is required and expected to work in accordance with its laid down rules, its accounts are subject to audit. The final costing was made uniformly applicable. There is nothing on record to show that the complainants were discriminated against or differently treated from other similarly situate persons. Unreasonable and unjustifiable time overruns or malfeasance or irregularities, as may have led to the escalation in the cost, or some manifest ‘deficient’ act, is also not visible from the record. As such in the present matter there appears to be no ‘deficiency’ on the part of the housing board. Accordingly there appears to be no material infirmity in the lower fora’s operative decision to reject the complainants’ case.

7.       It may however be added that the District Commission after examining the matter dismissed the complaints as ‘not maintainable’ though the complaints specifically contained allegations of ‘deficiency in service’ on the part of the housing board and as such were most obviously maintainable before the District Commission. The District Commission thus erred in terming the complaints as ‘not maintainable’. The correct position was that though the complaints were undoubtedly ‘maintainable’ but the allegations of ‘deficiency’ contained therein were not borne out by the facts and evidence. Hypothetically, had there been some material violation of its rules or if the complainants had been discriminated against or dissimilarly treated from other similarly situate persons or had there been unreasonable and unjustifiable time overruns or malfeasance or irregularities, as may have led to the escalation in the cost, or had there been some manifest ‘deficient’ act, the matter would have been differently placed and the forum would not then have been either averse or loath to step in and pass necessary corrective orders to set the things right and effectuate justice.

8.       The revision petitions stand dismissed with observations as above. It is made explicit that the complaints stand dismissed as being sans merit.

9.       The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to the parties in the revision petitions and to their learned counsel immediately. The stenographer is also requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.