1.      Roop Singh Barhat, the complainant, applied for registration of MIG Flat in Scheme Group ‘B’ by depositing an initial amount of Rs.4600/- on 16.1.1980.  A registration number was also allotted to him.  The petitioner was so informed that whenever a new scheme was to be floated, he would be accommodated accordingly.  Rajasthan Housing Board started a Scheme regarding multi-storeyed flats called Self Financed Group Scheme in Mansarovar Jaipur in the year 2006.  The cost of each flat was estimated at Rs.19,13,400/-.  According to the brochure, the initial amount of 10% of the total cost was supposed to be deposited.  However, the complainant deposited only Rs. 1 lakh besides the amount which he had already paid in the sum of Rs.4600/-.  The complainant did not pay the amount of Rs.86,740/-.  The opposite party vide its reservation letter dated 31.5.2008, enhanced the cost of flats from Rs.19,13,400/- to Rs. 27,94,000/-.  The complainant was also asked to deposit 10% of the total cost which is near about 1,74,800 upto 30.6.2008.  Thereafter, the complainant asked the Housing Board to return his deposited amount because he was not having the capacity to purchase the flat on increased cost.  The opposite party made it clear that the matter of increasing the amount was under discussion and the amount could not be returned back till the decision is taken in that respect.  Against the enhanced order, the writ was filed before the Hon’ble High Court which dismissed the writ. 

2.      The complaint was filed before the District Forum.  The District Forum directed the opposite party to pay to Roop Singh Barhat, the deposited amount alongwith interest @9% per annum on the deposited amount and Rs.50,000/- compensation against mental torture and Rs.3,000/- cost of the litigation.

3.      An appeal was preferred by the opposite party before the State Commission.  A cross appeal was also field by the complainant before the State Commission.  The State Commission dismissed both the appeals.

4.      We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.  He contended that the compensation granted by the District Forum is on the higher side.  We are in full agreement with the State Commission when it observes:-

“…….. After considering the facts it appeared to me that appellant Roop Singh got registration in 1980 in MIG “B” Scheme and he had been waiting for 26 years.  In 2006 a plot of Rs.19 lakh was reserved to him in Self Financing Scheme in two storey scheme in Mansarovar and he was directed to deposit 10% amount.  In this way, on one side, Housing Board failed to allot the house for 26 years.  After that in 2006 the house was reserved for him in a different scheme with the direction to deposit 10% amount.  After two years, suddenly the amount of this flat was increased 46%.  Under such circumstances, the appellant was not in a definite state of affair for 26 years, as to whether a house will be given to him or not.  In those circumstances, the Ld. District Forum ordered to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- which cannot be held unreasonable.  Under such circumstances there is no need to interfere in the judgment of Ld. District Forum.”