Challenge in this Revision Petition, by the Complainant, is to the order dated 15.06.2015, passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (for short “the State Commission”) in Appeal No. 428 of 2015.  By the impugned order, the State Commission, while affirming the order dated 19.03.2015, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum – III, Jaipur (for short “the District Forum”) in Complaint Case No. 54 of 2012 (Old Case No.786 of 2010), has come to the conclusion that the said Complaint was not maintainable because another Complaint, being No. 541 of 2009, on the same cause of action, had already been allowed by the District Forum vide order dated 19.03.2015 and relief on account of deficiency in service on the part of the Rajasthan Housing Board (for short “the Housing Board”) had been granted to the Complainant.  There is no dispute that the said order, awarding compensation on account of proved deficiency in service on the part of the Housing Board in not delivering the possession of the house in question on time, has attained finality, though the amount of compensation awarded by the District Forum stands reduced by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

The controversy, occasioning the filing of the second Complaint, giving rise to the present Revision Petition, arose thus:

Sometime in the year 2001, pursuant to an advertisement issued by the Housing Board, the Complainant applied for allotment of a house under the category “Middle Income Group – A”.  According to the Complainant, in the booklet, supplied at the time of registration, the house was to comprise of one bedroom, one kitchen, one lounge, one bathroom, one latrine, one drawing room and stairs for going to the roof but, when the possession of the allotted house was delivered to her on 06.03.2009, she found that the house was incomplete.  The say of the Complainant was that although a possession letter had been got signed from her but she was assured by the functionaries of the Housing Board that the remaining construction would be completed after the dispute with the land owners was resolved.  The stand of the Complainant is that since the house was not completed despite several oral assurances, she was left with no option but to file the second Complaint.  In the said Complaint, the Complainant had prayed for award of compensation of ₹13,11,000/- along with a further compensation of ₹2,00,000/- for the incomplete construction and interest @ 12% p.a. on the said amounts.

During the pendency of the Complaint, the Housing Board filed an Application before the District Forum, praying for dismissal of the Complaint on the ground that the second Complaint on the same cause of action was not maintainable.  Before adjudicating on the merits of the Complaint, the District Forum considered the said objection in its final order dated 19.03.2015, wherein it came to the conclusion that the second Complaint was different from the facts mentioned in the first Complaint, inasmuch as the relief claimed in the two Complaints were entirely different.  Accordingly, the said Application was dismissed.  Nevertheless, the District Forum came to the conclusion that since adequate relief had already been granted to the Complainant in the first Complaint, no further relief deserved to be granted in the second Complaint.  Resultantly, the District Forum dismissed the Complaint.

Being aggrieved, the Complainant carried the matter in further Appeal to the State Commission.  As noted above, the State Commission has dismissed the Appeal on the afore-stated ground. 

Hence, the present Revision Petition.

Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the order impugned in this Revision Petition is unsustainable.  As noted above, while dealing with the Application filed on behalf of the Housing Board, seeking dismissal of the Complaint on the ground that the second Complaint on the same cause of action was not maintainable, the District Forum had opined that the cause of action for filing the second Complaint was on account of the alleged deficiency occurring after the delivery of possession of the house to the Complainant, whereas the first Complaint related to the alleged deficiency on the part of the Housing Board on account of delay in the delivery of possession as well as there was no provision for electricity/water connection etc.  A bare reading of the impugned order shows that the State Commission has omitted to examine the second Complaint from that angle.  We are of the view that the distinction made out by the District Forum, while dismissing the aforesaid Application filed by the Housing Board, was perfectly in order and the State Commission erred in dismissing the second Complaint on the afore-stated ground. 

We, however, hasten to clarify that we are not expressing any opinion on the question as to whether the Housing Board had committed any deficiency in not completing the remaining construction, as claimed by the Petitioner, though it prima facie appears from the brochure, placed on record, that in the case of Middle Income Group – A, an Applicant was to be delivered possession of a fully constructed house.        

In view of the above, we set aside the impugned order and restore Appeal No. 428 of 2015 to the board of the State Commission for fresh adjudication on the question as to whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the Housing Board in delivering possession of an incomplete house and, if so, whether the Complainant is entitled to any further compensation, in addition to the compensation already awarded/received by the Complainant.

The parties/their Counsel are directed to appear before the State Commission on 12.12.2016 for further proceedings.

The Revision Petition stands disposed of in the above terms.