Appeared at the time of hearing

PRONOUNCED ON : 14^TH JUNE 2017

ORDER

PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER

          This appeal has been filed under section 19 read with section 21(a)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 03.08.2015, passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’) in Consumer Complaint No. 59/2010, filed by the present respondent Santosh Kumar Hakim, vide which, the said complaint was allowed.

2.       The facts of the case as admitted by both the parties are that the complainant/respondent Santosh Kumar Hakim made an application to the appellant, Rajasthan Housing Board (hereinafter referred to as ‘Board’), for allotment of a house under their 1979 General Registration Scheme, vide application form No. 75505, by depositing a sum of Rs.3,000/- on 30.01.1980.  A receipt of deposit and a registration certificate was issued by the Board on 29.10.1980 to the complainant.  Thereafter, in response to an offer from the Board, the complainant deposited another sum of Rs.7,000/- ON 12.06.1982 and requested for change in his income group from Medium Income Group “B” to Higher Income Group (HIG).  Thereafter, according to the Board, they issued letter No. 184 dated 09.01.97, whereby the complainant was asked to deposit certain sums in instalments within the time schedule laid down.  However, the said letter was received back by the Board as per their own version, as the complainant had changed his address and such change was not in the knowledge of the Board.  As stated by the Board, they sent another letter dated 15.01.2000 at the new address of the complainant, informing him about the earlier letter of 09.01.97 and calling upon him to deposit the amount.  Following his failure to deposit the amount, the registration of the complainant was cancelled vide letter No. 484 dated 21.06.2000.  However, this is contested by the complainant by saying that he never received any letter dated 21.06.2000.  Further, the complainant made an application on 20.11.2007 under General Registration Scheme 2007 of the Board in Ramakrishna Apartment Phase-II, alongwith deposit of Rs.1,90,000/-.  Vide letter dated 13.02.2008, the Board issued a reservation letter to him, intimating that a flat in the Medium Income Group “B” in Ramakrishna Apartment had been reserved for him.  However, just after four months, the Board issued another letter No. 1086 dated 18.06.2008 to him, saying that the letter dated 13.02.2008 was being cancelled as his earlier registration had already been cancelled.  The version of the Board is that letter dated 13.02.2008 had been issued by mistake inadvertently, which was rectified by issuing letter dated 18.06.2008 and thereafter, they returned the money deposited by him as well.  The complainant then filed the consumer complaint, in question, before the State Commission which was allowed vide impugned order dated 03.08.2015 in which, the State Commission stated as follows:-

“7.     On the basis of record placed before us, we are of the view that the complainant was not informed of the cancellation of his original registration nor any intimation to deposit the seed money was sent to him is proved. No reminders were issued to him. Thus, the complaint deserves to be allowed and the opposite party is directed to allot him a flat in Ramakrishna Apartment Scheme. In case of non-availability in this scheme, the opposite party is directed to allot a similar flat in some other scheme on the terms and conditions and cost prevailing in the year 2008. The complainant will deposit all the cost and other amounts as demanded by the opposite party. The order will be complied with within two months.

8.      Since we have ordered that the complainant be allotted flat on the cost prevailing in the year 2008, this will cover the compensation for mental agony and cost of prosecution for the complainant as the prices after 2008 have been markedly escalated. The complaint is allowed as above.”

3.       Being aggrieved by the impugned order of the State Commission, the Board is before this Commission by way of the present appeal.

4.       During proceedings in the appeal, notice was issued to the respondent, who appeared and contested the case through counsel. 

5.       There is a delay of 59 days in filing the present appeal.  It has been contended in the application for condonation of delay as well as during arguments that the delay took place, as they had to take legal opinion from the Advocate of the Board, following which, the decision to file the appeal was taken.  Thereafter, the record of the case was sent to Delhi for engaging the services of an Advocate for filing the said appeal.  Moreover, a number of documents had to be translated from vernacular language to English.  The appellant prayed that the delay be condoned in view of the position explained. 

6.       Considering the pleas taken by the Rajasthan Housing Board that certain time was taken in obtaining the legal opinion, taking a decision about the filing the appeal, engaging the services of an Advocate and getting the documents translated, it is felt that it shall be in the interest of justice, if the said delay of 59 days is condoned as the Board has been able to offer a reasonable explanation for such condonation.  The delay of 59 days in filing the appeal is, therefore, condoned.

7.       On merits, the learned counsel for the appellant Board argued that their letter sent in the year 1997, asking the complainant to deposit more money was returned because the complainant had not intimated his new address to them.  Thereafter, they had sent letter in the year 2000 and then, the letter of cancellation at his new address, but there was no response from him.  Regarding the scheme floated in the year 2007, the learned counsel stated that only those persons could make applications under the said scheme, who were validly registered with them already.  In the case of the complainant, an allotment letter was issued by mistake inadvertently on 13.02.2008, but the mistake was rectified by cancelling that letter vide another letter dated 18.06.2008.  The learned counsel maintained that the complainant had no right for allotment of any property by the Board and moreover, he did not fall under the category of ‘consumer’ under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

8.       On behalf of the complainant, written arguments have been submitted, in which it is stressed that the letters of 1997 or the cancellation letter of 21.06.2000 had never been received by the complainant.  The Board had not produced any evidence in support of their version that the said letters were sent or were received by the complainant.  The State Commission observed in their order as follows:-

“..........In para no. 7 of the reply the opposite party submits that registration was cancelled vide letter no. 484 dated 21.6.2000 while in para no.1 the opposite party submits that he was informed of the cancellation vide letter no.1086 dated 18.6.2008. None of office copies of these letters have been produced and it is also not proved through which mode these cancellation letters were sent to the complainant and on what address. Second point is whether the complainant was informed of the seed money vide letter dated 9.1.1997. No office copy of this letter has been placed on record. In the absence of any office copy or any other proof or affidavit, it cannot be believed that complainant was asked to deposit the seed money in three instalments.”

9.       It has been argued on behalf of the complainant that the Board had no right to produce any documents during the proceedings in appeal, which were not produced earlier. 

10.     I have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before me. 

11.     The first point that arises for consideration is whether the complainant falls within the definition of ‘consumer’ under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 or not.  The admitted facts are that the complainant did make an application in the year 1979 and was duly registered by the Board for allotment of properties in their future schemes.  According to the Board, his registration was cancelled in the year 2000 for his failure to deposit the amount as asked for through letter of 1997.  However, the Board admits that the said letters had been received back from the complainant as he had changed his address.  It is also admitted on record that the complainant made application under the scheme of 2007 floated by the Board and that application was duly entertained and in response to that, an allotment letter was also issued on 13.02.2008.  It is true that the Board later on cancelled the said allotment letter vide another letter dated 15.06.2008, but it goes without saying that the complainant had deposited his money with the Board in the year 1979 and he kept on waiting for the allotment for a long number of years.  It has also not been proved anywhere whether any letter of cancellation was received by him.  In the light of these facts, there is not an iota of doubt that the complainant does fall within the definition of ‘consumer’.  The contention of the Board to the contrary in this regard is hereby rejected.

12.     Looking at the merits of the case, it is very clear that the initial registration money was deposited by the complainant as far back as in the year 1979.  As per the own version of the Board, the first letter asking him to deposit further money was issued in the year 1997, i.e., 18 years later.  The said letter was never received by the complainant as admitted by the Board.  Later on, the Board is stated to have cancelled the registration in the year 2000, but the said letter of cancellation was also not received by the complainant.  It is again admitted from record that the initial money deposited by him was never returned by the Board till the year 2008.  In case, the Board had cancelled his registration made in the year 1979, they should have returned his money, once they took a decision to cancel the registration.  There is clear-cut deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of the Board as made out from these facts.

13.     Further, it is an admitted fact on record that the Board accepted his application alongwith an amount of Rs.1,90,000/- for the scheme floated in the year 2007 and issued an allotment letter as well on 13.02.2008.  The contention of the Board that the said letter was issued by mistake and was cancelled vide letter dated 15.06.2008, speaks of height of inefficiency in the working of the Board.  It is a clear indication that the Board has not been able to maintain their own record properly, nor they have been able to look after the interest of the gullible public, who deposit their hard-earned money with this Board in the hope of getting a residential property and keep on waiting for the same for decades together.  These Government/semi-Government agencies have no right to accept any money from the public, unless they are ready with a scheme, for which, allotment can be made within a reasonable time.  The State Commission have come to the right conclusion that in the absence of relevant documents produced by the Board, the complaint against them deserves to be allowed.  I do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order passed by the State Commission in giving the direction that the Board should allot a flat to the complainant in the Ramakrishna Scheme, or a similar flat in some other scheme on the terms and conditions at the cost prevailing in the year 2008.  The State Commission have also observed that since the price of the property would have escalated in the mean time, no further compensation was being provided for mental agony and litigation cost etc.  It is evident that the impugned order has been made after making a logical analysis of all the facts on record. 

14.     The Hon’ble Supreme Court in their landmark judgment in “Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs. Balbir Singh” [reported in (2004) 5 SC Cases 65] observed as follows:-

“Thus the law is that the Consumer Protection Act has a wide reach and the Commission has jurisdiction even in cases of service rendered by statutory and public authorities. Such authorities become liable to compensate for misfeasance in public office i.e. an act which is oppressive or capricious or arbitrary or negligent provided loss or injury is suffered by a citizen. The word compensation is of a very wide connotation. It may constitute actual loss or expected loss and may extend to compensation for physical, mental or even emotional suffering, insult or injury or loss. The provisions of the Consumer Protection Act enable a consumer to claim and empower the Commission to redress any injustice done. The Commission or the Forum is entitled to award not only value of goods or services but also to compensate a consumer for injustice suffered by him.”

15.     The facts and the circumstances of the present case indicate that the above judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court is fully applicable in the present case. 

16.     Based on the discussion above, this appeal is found to be without any merit and the same is ordered to be dismissed.  The order passed by the State Commission is upheld.  There shall be no order as to costs.