PER MR PREM NARAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER

        The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner – Rajasthan Housing Board against the order dated 24.01.2018 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench at Bikaner (‘the State Commission’) in Appeal no. 122 of 2016.

2.     The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/opposite party/ Housing Board published an advertisement in the year 2012 for residential plots. The respondent/ complainant submitted an application for middle income group ‘A’ category plot under the scheme. The registration amount was fixed at Rs.1.25 lakh and the same was deposited by the respondent. The application of the respondent was declared successful in the seniority lottery and the petitioner issued the demand letter for the seed money amount from the respondent at the commencement of the construction work of the house.  The respondent deposited the first instalment on 14.12.2013 and the second on 15.03.2014 for an amount of Rs.2,81,250/- each. The respondent visited the site and found that there was great lack of general amenities and no arrangement for road, park, light etc. The respondent cancelled his registration on 13.06.2014 and requested for refund of the amount deposited by the respondent. The petitioner Housing Board assured to refund the amount but instead of refunding the amount, issued an allotment letter dated 14.05.2015 and allotted house no.4/246 to respondent and demanded an amount of Rs.10,47,675/- from him. The respondent was surprised after receiving the letter when the respondent had already submitted an application for cancellation.  Hence, he filed a consumer complaint.

3.     The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Sriganganagar (Rajasthan) (‘the District Forum’) vide its order dated 22.07.2016 had allowed the complaint and the Petitioner – Housing Board was directed to refund the total amount of Rs.6,87,500/- with simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of application, i.e., 13.06.2014.

4.     Dissatisfied by the order of the District Forum, the petitioner – Housing Board preferred an appeal no. 122 of 2016 before the State Commission. The State Commission vide its impugned order dated 24.01.2018 dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order of the District Forum.

5.     Hence, the present revision petition

6.     Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at the admission stage and perused the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that there is a provision for deduction of 20% of the amount while refunding the amount paid by the complainant and accordingly Rs.5,45,000/- was refunded to the complainant. The house was booked under the self-financing scheme of the Rajasthan Housing Board and the house was being built from the funds of the complainant. If the complainant seeks refund during the progress of the house, Rajasthan Housing Board will have to put in its own money to complete the house or to sell the incomplete house at a loss to a third party. In both the cases, the petitioner will incur loss. To recover this loss, provision of 20% deduction has been made. Both the Fora below have not considered this aspect and have ordered refund of the total amount paid by the complainant along with 9% per annum interest and that too without any deduction.

7.     I have carefully considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and have examined the material on record. First of all, it is seen that both the Fora below have given a concurrent finding that the complainant is entitled to refund of the total amount paid by him and the deficiency on the part of the petitioner Housing Board has been established. The scope under the revision petition is quite limited particularly in the cases of concurrent finding by the Fora below as the facts cannot be reassessed by this Commission at the stage of revision petition where only jurisdictional aspects are to be seen. In taking this view, I am supported by the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel and Ors. Vs. H&R Johnson (India) Ltd. and others, (2016) 8 Supreme Court Cases 286, wherein, the following has been held:-

“23.  The National Commission has to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it only if the State Commission or the District Forum has either failed to exercise their jurisdiction or exercised when the same was not vested in them or exceeded their jurisdiction by acting illegally or with material irregularity.  In the instant case, the National Commission has certainly exceeded its jurisdiction by setting aside the concurrent finding of fact recorded in the order passed by the State Commission which is based upon valid and cogent reasons.”   

8.     Coming to the merits of the case, it is seen that deduction of 20% of the amount as earnest money has not been supported by this Commission in the case of DLF vs. Bhagwanti Narula, RP No.3860 of 2014, decided on 06.01.2015. From the above, it is clear that at the most, petitioner Housing Board was entitled to forfeit only 10% of the amount. However, even this may not be permitted in the present case because the complainant made the application for refund of the amount paid even before the house was allotted to the complainant by way of lottery draw. If the complainant had applied for refund before the lottery draw, his name should not have been included in the lottery draw. Thus, there is no fault of the complainant, if his name was erroneously included in the lottery draw. Thus, the complainant was entitled to full refund of the paid amount without any deduction in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

9.     Based on the above discussion, I do not find any merit in the present revision petition and accordingly, the revision petition no.1650 of 2018 is dismissed at the admission stage.