Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/1188/2016

Ravi Kumar Shau son of Prahald shau - Complainant(s)

Versus

Rajasthan Housing board through Deputy Housing Commissionor - Opp.Party(s)

Anup Mathur

10 Feb 2017

ORDER

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

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 1188 /2016

 

Ravi Kumar Sahus/o Prahalad Sahu r/o House No. 2608 Chaura Rasta, Teli Para, Jaipur.

Vs.

 

Rajasthan Housing Board through Dy.Housing Commissioner ( circle 2 ) Agarwal Farm, Mansarovar, Jaipur.

 

Date of order 10.02.2017

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

Hon'ble Mr. Kailash Soyal -Member

 

Mr. Anand Sharma counsel for the appellant

 

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

 

This appeal has been filed against the order passed by

2

 

the District Forum, Jaipur 3^rd dated 22.8.2016 whereby the complaint has been dismissed.

 

The contention of the appellant is that his contention before the Forum below was not only of costing but he has raised contentions as regard to delay in allotment of the house and further more charging of interest and not allowing interest which was admissible to him. Hence, the claim should have been allowed.

 

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgment as well as documents filed by the appellant.

 

The Forum below has held that the contention of the appellant was that he has been asked to deposit the amount more than that which was assessed at the time of registration and the Forum below has relied upon the judgment passed by this Commission in Appeal No.805/2015 Smt.Sudha Nagla Vs. Rajasthan Housing Board and the appellant himself has submitted the judgment passed by the National Commission in

Revision Petition No. 1209/2016 . In the above matter the revision has been dismissed with the observation that question

3

of cost or price fixation of the flats/ houses is not within the province of the Court even while exercising the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, unless it is satisfied that the pricing was arbitrary or determined by applying wrong principles and said principle would apply with much more vigour to the Consumer Fora. In view of the above, the Forum below was justified in dismissing the claim as the appellant wants to have the flat on the estimated cost.

 

Before this Commission the appellant has extend the canvas of the dispute and his contention is that allotment was not made in time of 24 months and interest has wrongly been asked and further more when there was delay in allotment of house interest has not been paid to him but these contentions have not been raised before the Forum below hence, these are after thoughts only and cannot be entertained.

 

In view of the above, there is no merit in this appeal not worth admission and stands dismissed.

 

(Kailash Soyal ) (Nisha Gupta )

Member President

nm