APPEARED AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENTS

PRONOUNCED ON : 11^th AUGUST  2017

O R D E R

PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER

          This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 13.12.2007, passed in two cross-appeals by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’) in proceedings in Consumer Complaint No. 281/2006.  The District Forum, Jaipur vide their order dated 03.02.2007 in complaint No. 281/2006, directed the respondent/Rajasthan Housing Board to allot a flat in favour of the complainant and also to pay certain penalties.  The said order was challenged by the complainant as well as the OP Housing Board before the State Commission by way of two appeals, bearing nos. FA No. 525/2007 & FA No. 548/2007.  Vide impugned order, the appeal of the OP Housing Board was allowed and directions were given to the Board to hand over the possession of flat No. 52/16 to the complainant, after receiving the amount in question alongwith interest @9% p.a.

2        The facts of the case are that the petitioner/complainant Satish Kumar Arora who belongs to the High-Income Group, made an application to the OP Housing Board for getting residential accommodation and deposited a sum of ₹10,000/- as registration charges.  The OP Housing Board informed him vide letter dated 24.09.1991 that a flat had been reserved for him in Sanganer Scheme, Jaipur and that he should deposit further amounts in instalments within the time frame laid down, after which his name will be included in the draw of lots.  The complainant deposited the instalments as demanded by the Housing Board, following which flat No. 52/16 was allotted to him vide letter dated 30.04.93, sent by the OP Housing Board.  Through this letter the OP demanded a sum of ₹4,19,024.50ps. from the petitioner/complainant after adjusting the amounts already paid by him by way of registration amount and seed money instalments alongwith interest on the same. 

3.       However, instead of depositing the said amount, the complainant filed the consumer complaint in question, saying that he had applied for an accommodation measuring 252 sq. mtr. whereas the unit allotted to him had an area of 84 sq. mtr. only.  Moreover, the OP had demanded more money from him than had been promised to be demanded earlier.  The OP Housing Board took the stand that they never made any promise with the complainant to allot him a house measuring 252 sq. mtr. and had clearly stated in their letter dated 24.09.91 that a flat had been reserved for him.  The District Forum dismissed the complaint vide order dated 03.12.1996.  However, the said order was reversed by the State Commission in appeal vide order dated 12.01.2006 and the District Forum was asked to decide the case again.  The District Forum vide their order dated 03.02.2007 concluded that there was deficiency in service on the part of the OP Housing Board, as they had changed the category of accommodation without the consent of the complainant.  The District Forum, however, directed that possession of flat No. 52/16 be handed over to the complainant after obtaining the balance amount from him.  The District Forum also directed that compensation of ₹30,000/- for mental tension and ₹5,000/- as litigation cost shall be paid by the OP Housing Board to the complainant.  Being aggrieved by this order, both the parties filed appeals before the State Commission which have been decided vide the impugned order.  The appeal filed by the complainant has been dismissed, whereas the appeal filed by the OP has been partly allowed and the OP has been directed to hand over the possession of flat No. 52/16 to the complainant, after accepting the balance amount from him alongwith interest @9% p.a.

4.       A significant observation made in the order of the State Commission says that during arguments before them, the learned counsel for the complainant stated that the complainant was prepared to accept flat No. 52/16.  However, the complainant has filed the present revision petition stating to be aggrieved against the order passed by the State Commission. 

5.       In the grounds of the revision petition, it has been stated in the prayer clause that the respondent/OP Housing Board should be directed to hand over the possession of an independent house to the complainant measuring 252 sq. mtr. as per the terms and conditions promised in the brochure and not to levy any interest on the cost of the house for the period, the possession had not been given to the petitioner.  The learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant stated during arguments as well that the OP Housing Board was charging higher prices from the complainant than that promised in the brochure.  Moreover, they had changed the category for the accommodation without the consent of the complainant.  The learned counsel stated that the house to be handed over to the complainant should be in appropriate habitable condition.

6.       On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent housing board has drawn attention to the letter dated 24.09.91, saying that they had made it very clear that the reservation was being made for a flat only.  There was no merit in the present revision petition and it should be dismissed.

7.       I have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before me.

8.       From the documents on record, it is very clear that vide letter dated 24.09.91, the OP Housing Board informed the complainant/petitioner that the reservation was for a flat being constructed in Sanganer Scheme, Jaipur.  In response to this letter, the complainant deposited the necessary instalments with the Housing Board, following which, a specific flat No. 52/16 was allotted to the complainant and a specific sum of ₹4,19,024.50ps. was demanded from him.  In case, the petitioner was not willing to accept the allotment of flat, he should have agitated the matter immediately after the receipt of the letter dated 24.09.91.  It is evident, therefore, that by his own act of depositing the necessary instalments as stated in letter dated 24.09.91, the petitioner had foregone his right to get the allotment of a house having bigger area.  Further, it is clearly made out from a plain reading of the impugned order of the State Commission that the petitioner stated before them that he was interested to get the allotment of flat No. 52/16 only.  He has, therefore, no right to challenge the impugned order by way of the present revision petition, which deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone.

9.       Based on the discussion above, it is held that there is no infirmity, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order passed by the State Commission and the same is upheld.  The present revision petition is ordered to be dismissed.  There shall be no order as to costs.