Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/1551/2010

Jitendar Mahashwari s/o - Complainant(s)

Versus

Rajasthan Housing Mandal - Opp.Party(s)

Rajandar Vijay

01 Dec 2015

ORDER

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

 

 

APPEAL NO: 1551/2010

 

Jinendra Maheshwari s/o Ramjas Maheshwari r/o Plot No. B 507, Sudama Kutti, Near SBBJ Bank, Mahesh Nagar, Jaipur.

Vs.

Rajasthan Housing Board through Chairman, Head Office, Janpath, Jaipur & ors.

 

APPEAL NO: 1654/2010

 

Rajasthan Housing Board through Chairman, Head Office, Janpath, Jaipur & ors.

Vs.

Jinendra Maheshwari s/o Ramjas Maheshwari r/o Plot No. B 507, Sudama Kutti, Near SBBJ Bank, Mahesh Nagar, Jaipur.

 

Date of Order 1.12.2015

 

 

2

 

Before:

 

Hon'ble Mr.Vinay Kumar Chawla-Presiding Member

Mr.Liyakat Ali- Member

Mr.Kailash Soyal-Member

 

Mr. Rajendra Vijay counsel for the complainant Jinendra Maheshwari

Mr.Shiv Vyas counsel for the Housing Board

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION

 

Both these appeals arise out of the judgment of learned DCF Jaipur 2^nd dated 13.7.2010 by which it allowed the complaint.

 

Brief facts giving rise to this complaint are that the complainant applied for a flat from the Rajasthan Housing Board. He had deposited Rs.10,000/- as application money on 13.5.2005. These flats were to be constructed for weaker section of the society whose monthly income did not exceed Rs.5000/- per month. The Rajasthan Housing Board on receipt of his application appointed an independent agency to verify the

3

 

income of the applicant and it was found that income of the applicant exceeded Rs.5000/- per month and he was not eligible under this scheme. His registration was cancelled and a sum of Rs. 9500/- was returned to him after deducting a sum of Rs.500/- as processing charges. The complainant filed a consumer complaint before the DCF against rejection of his application and the learned DCF vide its impugned order found that opposite party has not been able to prove that complainant was not eligible as his income exceeded Rs.5000/- per month. However, it found that it was not possible to allot a flat to the complainant under this scheme as the flats constructed under the scheme have already been allotted. The learned DCF ordered that it was not proper for the opposite party to deduct Rs.500/- as processing charges and it ordered refund of Rs.500/- alongwith compensation of Rs.25,000/- for mental agony.

 

The Housing Board has challenged this order and have filed Appeal No. 1551/2010.

 

The complainant has also filed a separate appeal bearing no. 1654/2010 challenging the findings of the learned DCF.

 

4

 

We have heard the arguments of both counsels and have perused the record.

 

The complainant while submitting his application had filed an affidavit that his monthly income did not exceed Rs.5000/-. Alongwith the affidavit he also submitted a certificate Anx. 6 of Mittal Freight Carrier with whom the complainant was employed for a monthly salary of Rs.4600/-. However, when a verification was conducted by the agency, it was found that complainant was having TV, cooler and he was married having three daughters who were studying in National Academy School. The information was gathered personally by the agency when it visited the house of the complainant and met complainant's wife.

 

The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that he was living in a tenanted accommodation and rent deed was also produced by him alongwith the certificate of the employer while the agency which conducted the verification has not been proved. No affidavit of the investigator has been filed and no signatures of his wife was obtained at the time of investigation.

 

We have found that the evidence produced by the

5

 

complainant in support of his income is not believable. The rent deed he filed was executed on 5.8.2006 while the application for allotment was submitted in the year 2005. Thus, the rent deed is of no avail. He has not denied the fact that his three daughters were studying in National Academy School. The investigator found that he lives in a rented accommodation and was paying Rs.1500/- per month while the rent agreement was for Rs.1000/- per month. How is it possible for a person earning Rs.4600/- per month paying Rs.1500/- as house rent and is supporting a family of five persons including him with meagre Rs.3100/- and his daughters are studying in a private academy. The employer certificate produced by the complainant is also not believable. It bears no date etc. Even if we accept the argument that signatures of his wife was not obtained by the investigator this evidence in support of his income is not believable. It was the duty of the complainant to prove his monthly income. It was not obligatory on the part of the Housing Board to prove his monthly income as the learned DCF has concluded.

 

In view of this we find that the complainant was not entitled for allotment under this scheme and his application was rightly rejected by the Housing Board and application money

6

 

was refunded and sent to him through a cheque. We also hold that a sum of Rs.500/- was rightly deducted by the Housing Board as processing charges as the complainant was guilty of applying for a flat in the scheme for which he was not entitled. There is no deficiency on the part of the Rajasthan Housing Board in rejecting his application. The appeal of the Rajasthan Housing Board deserves to be allowed.

 

The appeal of the complainant deserves to be dismissed. The learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that refund cheque of Rs.9500/- has not been encashed by him. We order that the Rajasthan Housing Board revalidate this cheque so the amount could be obtained by the complainant.

 

 

(Kailash Soyal) (Liyakat Ali) (Vinay Kumar Chawla)

Member Member Presiding Member

 

 

nm