REKHA GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER

                The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 4^th January 2016 of the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bench no. 1, Jaipur (the “State Commission”) in Appeal no. 505 of 2015.

2.     The facts of the case as per the petitioner/ complainant are that the petitioner had applied for allotment of a house with the respondent Board/ Mandal under the General Registration Scheme, 1981 and deposited Rs.4600/- on 03.10.1981. The priority of the petitioner had been fixed on 30.11.1985. The respondent Board/ Mandal informed the petitioner in the year 1987 that they could not make available the house due to serious water problem in Ajmer and there were no possibilities to provide the house in the coming 5-7 years and offered that if the petitioner wanted to take his amount, he could do so. Otherwise, if the petitioner wanted to keep his registration pending, the allotment of the house could be done in the coming scheme. Thereafter, in the year 1993, one house has been allotted to the complainant under one scheme but the house had been allotted under the self-finance scheme.  The petitioner filed a complaint before the District Forum against this in the year 1993.

3.     During the pendency of the complaint, the petitioner approached the MRTP Commission with a petition against the present complaint that the respondent Board/ Mandal cannot convert his allotment to the self-finance scheme allotment when he had booked under the Rent Series Scheme. Thereafter the petitioner withdrew the complaint filed before the District Forum stating that he is taking proceedings before the MRTP Commission. MRTP Commission accepted the petition of the petitioner and directed that the respondent Board/ Mandal could not change the allotment to the self-financing scheme. The respondent Board/ Mandal had then approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court, wherein the Supreme Court vide order dated 26.04.2005 dismissed the appeal of the opposite party. The respondent Board/ Mandal then allotted the petitioner a house under the hire purchase scheme in the year 2007. The allotment was done on 22.12.2007 but the petitioner did not take any action for five years. He neither deposited the amount for the house nor obtained the possession of the aforesaid house. He then filed a new complaint before the District Forum in the year 2012, thereby seeking direction to provide the house on the amount mentioned under the Registration Scheme in the year 1981 and further prayed that the respondent Board/ Mandal may be directed to compensate the petitioner with Rs.20,00,000/- and the information about any change in the estimated cost of house be informed to the petitioner and the media.

4.     The respondent Board/ Mandal filed their objections that the house cannot be allotted at the cost of 1981.

5.     The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ajmer vide its order dated 20.03.2015 while allowing the complaint gave the following order:

1. The complainant will be entitled to get the allotted house no. 1/3 G, as per terms and conditions mentioned in allotment order no. 2353;

2. The complainant can deposit the amount within six months from the date of this order as per terms and conditions of the allotment order;

3. The opposite party Mandal cannot demand any additional amount besides mentioned in the allotment order dated 22.12.2007 but the complainant will deposited the lease money mentioned in the allotment order and he will be depositing in future.

4. The opposite party will hand over the peaceful vacant and whole built up house as per allotment order dated 22.12.2007 within the stipulated period (aforesaid).

5. The parties will bear their own expenses in view of the facts and circumstances.

6.     Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum the respondent filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission vide their order dated 04.01.2016 while partially allowing the appeal of the respondent observed as under:

“During the arguments, it was depicted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner had deposited the entire amount as per the allotment letter dated 22.12.2007 to the respondent Board/ Mandal and the respondent Board/ Mandal has also obtained and the respondent Board/ Mandal cannot raise any objection of any kind. Estoppel principle will be applied against this case and this appeal has become infructuous. It was also their argument that because the allotment was not done after 2007, hence, the cause of action was continuing. The respondent Board/ Mandal filed an appeal no. 466 of 2011 and Revision Petition no. 2394 of 2011, therein the question of limitation was considered. The Appeal no. 466 of 2011 is regarding a restricted case. It was the argument of the Advocate that because the complaint had been withdrawn earlier and had not got liberty to file the fresh case hence, this case was not maintainable.

Whereas the question of limitation because the respondent Board/ Mandal had cancelled the allotment due to non-payment after 22.12.2007 and not handed over the possession, this case cannot be gone beyond the limitation in that situation evidently, whether the question was of second case presentation, this case has been filed against the respondent Board/ Mandal in the year 2007 and has been filed on the new cause of action and the reliefs sought in this case are also different. Hence, we do not find the case liable to be rejected on this ground.

Learned counsel for the respondent Board/ Mandal has argued that the District Forum cannot determine the issue of cost/ expenditure because it does not come under their jurisdiction. On this point he filed judgments of WLC (Raj) 1995 (2) Neermal Chand Sethia vs Rajasthan Housing Board and Anr. And 2001 Core SCRAJ 3 Rajasthan Housing Board and Anr. Vs Mahavir Prasad and Appeal no. 134/ 1991 (NC) The Gujarat Housing Board vs Akhil Bharitya Grahak Panchayat.

The forum is fully agreed with the arguments of the Counsel for the respondent Board/ Mandal that the District Forums have no jurisdiction regarding cost/ expenditure, such type of identification has been done in different courts. District Forum has no jurisdiction to consider the cost/ expenditure of any house.

During the course of the arguments, the fact came on record that the petitioner has deposited the amount of Rs.12,18,425/- demanded by the respondent Board/ Mandal after order dated 14.09.2015 passed by the District Forum and the respondent Board/ Mandal has also accepted this amount.

The question was that whether the estoppel can be considered on the basis of acceptance of amount by the respondent Board/ Mandal. We are of the opinion that the petitioner has deposited this amount on 14.09.2015 while the appeal was filed on 04.05.2015. In this situation, this case cannot be conceded in the category of estoppel. The petitioner has not informed the Commission about the deposit amount, which has been deposited by him during the pendency of the Appeal.

Whether the question is of cost/ expenditure of the house, the house be given to him on the cost of the year 1981, this relief has also been accepted by the District Forum and District Forum has supported its judgment with one judgment of the Supreme Court, in that situation, we do not find any error in this issue and the allotment can be done on the prevailing rates on the date of the allotment period. The fact came before us that the allotment to the petitioner done on 22.12.2007 was done on the basis of rental scheme, he was to deposit Rs.7,58,840/- before the possession and Rs.5,38,200/- was to be paid in 154 monthly instalments. The petitioner has deposited the total cost of the house, i.e., Rs.13,18,842/- and he himself changed the payment schedule. There is no information before us about the petitioner has filed any application before the respondent Board/ Mandal in this regard and the respondent Board/ Mandal has accepted the same and no such fact came on record. On the one way, the petitioner has challenged this issue for ten years since 1993 that the respondent Board/ Mandal cannot make any change itself regarding payment but he himself changed the scheme of payment and got deposited this amount. It is argued on behalf of the learned counsel for the complainant that the complainant has been struggling for his house for the last 30-35 years and house has not been allotted to him.

We found on considering at this point that the complainant was really desirous to take the house, we have doubt upon it. It is correct that the residential Mandal refused to provide house due to the lack of water and offered to return the registration amount. The complainant filed complaint before the District Forum in the year 1993 when they put the allotment in self-financed scheme and further challenged it before the MRTP Commission, therein so many years passed. Thereafter, in the year 2007, he was allotted the house under the scheme of rental scheme. Then, the complainant challenged it on this basis that the house be provided on the cost of 1981. We felt this relief of his unfortunate and it appears that he was not interested to take the house and then he deposited onetime payment against the allotment letter on 22.12.2007. There is no reason for not depositing the amount in five year after the year of 2007. It can be opined that he was not interested to take the house. The complainant has filed case in 2012 that the house be given on the cost of 1981. Hence, he intentionally complicated this and carried on the litigation. The complainant has not given any clarification about non-payment from the year 2007 to 2012. After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, we think proper to amend in the order of the District Forum that the residential Mandal can take the interest from the complainant as per law. With this amendment this appeal is partially accepted.”

7.     Hence, the present revision petition.

8.     I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have carefully gone through the records of the case. Learned counsel for the petitioner Ms Shubham Mahajan, has contended that the State Commission had erred in awarding interest at the rate of 18% per annum which was very high and a more reasonable interest could have been awarded. No further point was urged.

9.     The State Commission in their order had come to the conclusion that the petitioner/ complainant himself was responsible to a great extent for the delay in the allotment of house to him. They have correctly observed that there is no reason on record to show that as to why the petitioner has failed to deposit the amount for five years from 2007 to 2012 after he had received the allotment letter on 22.12.2007. Even today, the learned counsel for the petitioner could not give any reasons for the same.

10.    The MRTP commission in their order dated 01.07.1998 had noted that the respondent had been explained that the respondent Board works on no profit no loss basis and as it takes loan from institutions like HUDCO and has to pay interest @ 18% or more it has to charge interest @ 24% more so in order to induce the registered applicants to make payments promptly on time. The respondent’s contention was that if the amount of instalments is not paid timely, the construction work cannot be carried on speedily. In the instant case, the State Commission has only stated in their order that the respondent can take interest from the complainant as per law. As per the Rajasthan Housing Board General Registration Schemes 1981 if the payments are made on 5^th to 9^th month then it would be with interest @ 18% per annum, hence, it is not the State Commission which has awarded 18%. The State Commission had stated that interest can be charged as per law and as per the scheme 18% is chargeable. Admittedly, the petitioner did not pay for five months after the allotment letter and deposited the entire consideration only on 14.09.2015.

11.    In view of the discussion above, I find no jurisdictional error or material irregularity in the impugned order which may call for interference in exercise of powers under section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  Revision petition is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.