BEFORE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CIRCUIT BENCH, RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR


Appeal No. 1084/2008


B.K. Gupta S/o Shri Om Prakash Gupta, 5/326, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur.

..Appellant-Complainant


VS


Rajasthan Housing Board, through Secretary, Jyoti Nagar, Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur.

..Respondent-Opposite Party


Before:

Mr. G.S. Hora, Presiding Member

Mr. Sikandar Punjabi, Member


Present:

Mr. D.M. Mathur, counsel for the Appellant

Mr. V.P. Mathur, counsel for the Respondent


ORDER Dated: 06.07.2009


PER Mr. G.S. HORA, PRESIDING MEMBER



This appeal is against the order dated 9.5.2008 passed by the learned District Forum, Jaipur-I, Jaipur whereby the complaint of the Complainant was dismissed.


The case of the Appellant is that the house was booked under Parijat Scheme and as per letter dated 2.8.1988 the entire amount was deposited by the Complainant but neither the house was allotted nor possession was given. The possession was given on 9.3.1994 on which the date the cost had gone very high, although in the year 1988, the cost of the house was about Rs. 1,75,000/-.. Alleging deficiency in service in giving late possession, the complaint was filed.


We have considered the arguments of both the sides and gone through the file.


In reply to letter dated 6.1.1993, a fresh option was given by the Complainant on 15.1.1993 and thereafter on 30.4.1993 the house was allotted under the Outright Sale in Malviya Nagar Scheme. It is an

2

admitted position that the possession of the house has already been received by the Complainant on 9.3.1994. The contention of the learned counsel for the Appellant is that by 31st July, 1989, the Complainant had deposited the entire amount under the Parijat Scheme but no allottment letter was issued. The Opposite Party was bound to give possession of the house within two years of the deposit of the required amount. The possession should have been delivered by 31.7.1991 but till 1993 nothing was done.


The learned counsel for the Respondent argued that under the Scheme, it was also made clear that if possession is not handed over within two years, the Complainant shall be entitled to get interest @ 6% per annum on the amount deposited by him. As per this scheme, the interest has been awarded to the Complainant and therefore there should not have been any grievance.


We are of the view that as per scheme, the possession of the house was to be given within two years but it was also made clear that in case possession is not given within two years then allottee shall be entitled to get interest @ 6% p.a. It is an admitted position that as per the scheme, the interest has been given to the Complainant. In our view, the Opposite Party had fulfilled its obligation by giving the Complainant the amount of interest as per the scheme. Later the Complainant gave his option for the independent house, the possession of which has already been given to him.


The learned counsel for the Appellant also submitted that the houses were not ready till 1993 then why the anciliary charges were claimed by the Opposite Party. The learned counsel for the Opposite Party submitted that aniciliary charges are the administrative charges which the Opposite Party takes from allottees. The Rajasthan House Board works on 'no profit, no loss' basis and if as per the scheme, these charges are levied then there is full justification for the same. Having considered the arguments, we are of the view that if some amount is charged as administrative charges, it can not be said to be unreasonable. After all, the Board works on 'No profit, no loss basis' which is providing houses at a very reasonable price. If as a matter of policy, the said amount is charged, it can not be said to be unreasonable.


For the forgoing reasons, we find no force in this appeal and the same is dismissed with cost on parties.



Member Presiding Member