Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/1520/2016

Prem Singh Seni s/o Geeg Ram Saini - Complainant(s)

Versus

Rajasthan Housing Board - Opp.Party(s)

Pramod Kumar

19 Dec 2017

ORDER

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

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 1520/2016

 

Prem Singh Saini s/o Geegaram Saini r/o House No.10/165 Housing Board Colony, Shyosinghpura RHB Sikar at present r/o House No. 15/05 Duplex colony, Shivsinghpura Housing board Colony, Navalgarh, Sikar.

Vs.

Rajasthan Housing Board Division Jhunjhunu through Housing Engineer & ors.

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 1525/2016

 

Rakesh Kumar Meel s/o Beerbal Singh r/o Unique Sr.Secondary School Janta Colony, Sikar at present r/o House No. 15/8 Duplex colony, Shivsinghpura Housing board Colony, Navalgarh Road, Sikar.

Vs.

Rajasthan Housing Board Division Jhunjhunu through Housing Engineer & ors.

 

 

2

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 1528/2016

 

Nand Kishore Mourya s/o Moolchand Mourya r/o Fatehpur Road, Ward no. 43, Ambedkar Nagar, Sikar at present r/o House No. 15/06 Duplex colony, Shivsinghpura Housing board Colony, Navalgarh road, Sikar.

Vs.

Rajasthan Housing Board Division Jhunjhunu through Housing Engineer & ors.

 

Date of Order 19.12.2017

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

 

Mr.Pramod Kumar counsel for the appellants complainants

Mr. Shiv Vyas counsel for the respondents Housing Board

 

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

 

All these appeals raise common question hence, are

3

 

decided by this common order.

 

The contention of the appellant is that he deposited the installment on time inspite of this interest on installment is charged which is deficiency on the part of the respondents.

 

Per contra the contention of the respondent is that installments were not paid on time and as per condition no. 10 of the Scheme interest has rightly been charged.

 

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

 

There is no dispute about the fact that as per allotment letter the installments were to be paid on 15.9.2011, 15.12.2011, 15.3.2012 and 15.6.2012 but in none of the cases the appellant has deposited the amount on time. Taken note of the facts of Prem Singh Vs. Housing Board the amounts were deposited by cheque on 14.9.2011, 15.12.2011, 15.3.2012 and 14.6.2012 and counsel for the respondent has rightly pointed out that money could not be remitted in the account of the Housing Board on the same day and when amount of the

4

 

installment are being paid with delay the respondents were within their rights to charge interest and no deficiency could be attributed to the respondents on this count.

 

The other contention of the respondent is that possession of the property has been accepted without any pre-condition and even the disputed amount has been deposited without any objection hence, the consumer complaint is not maintainable and reliance has been placed on II (2016) CPJ 36 (NC) Harpal Arya Vs. Housing Board, Haryana.

 

In view of the above the appeals are not maintainable and stand dismissed.

(Nisha Gupta) President

nm