NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI

CIRCUIT BENCH AT JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

REVISION PETITION NO.301 OF 2015
(From the Order dated 10.10.2014  in  Appeal  No.860/2014   of    the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur)

1.Rajasthan Housing Board                             .....Petitioner(s)  

Through Secretary

Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur

Rajasthan

2. Dy. Commissioner (Housing)

Circle- I, Rajasthan Housing Board

Pratab Nagar, Sanganer,

Jaipur, Rajasthan

Versus

Ashish Verma                                                 .....Respondent(s)

S/o Shri R.B. Lal

R/o Kamla Sadan

Bhagat Singh Colony

Kota Rajasthan

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER

For the Petitioner(s)          :  Mr. R.K. Sharma, Advocate

For the Respondent(s)      :  Mr. Narendra Mewara, Advocate

Dated:  10.02.2020

JUDGEMENT

JUSTICE V.K.JAIN (ORAL)

The complainant/respondent got himself registered under Self Finance Scheme - 2009 depositing registration charges amounting to Rs.55,000/-. Though the registration amount for a general category applicants was Rs.1,10,000/, the same was only Rs.55,000/- for an applicant belonging to reserved category and admittedly, the complainant belongs to a reserved category. After registration, Demand Letter was issued to requiring him to deposit the price of the house in installments. The first installment payable by the complainant was Rs.2,20,000/-, whereas the 2^nd installment demanded from him was Rs.1,65,000/-. The complainant did not deposit any installments and rather sought refund of the registration amount.

2.      The petitioners took the stand that in terms of Clause 18(d) of the Brochure, 20% of the registration and reservation amount was to be deducted and, therefore, 20% of the installments which had become due by that time was also to be deducted alongwith 20% of the Registration Money.

3.      Being aggrieved, the complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint.

4.      The complaint was resisted by the petitioners who relying upon the Brochure issued by them maintained that 20% of the Registration Money and the installments which had become due by the time refund was sought by the complainant, were deductible out of the amount deposited by him.

5.      The District Forum having ruled in favour of the complainant, the petitioners approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal also having been dismissed, the petitioners are before this Commission.

6.      I have perused Clause 18(c) & (d) of the Brochure, which are relevant for the purpose of this revision petition and the English translation of the aforesaid Clauses provided by the petitioners, reads as under:-

“(c) If any applicant applies for refund for the amount deposited under the Self Finance Scheme after the issuance of Registration Letter but prior to deposit first installment of reservation amount then the registration amount so deposited without interest will be refunded to him after deducting 20% from the deposited registration amount.

(d)      If any applicant applies for refund for the amount deposited under the Self Finance Scheme after the issuance of Registration Letter and deposit of first/second/third/fourth installments etc. of reservation amount, then the amount so deposited (registration+ reservation amount) without interest will be refunded to him after deducting 20% from the deposited registration amount. For example, if any applicant applies for refund of his deposited amount when the 2^nd reservation amount was due, then the amount refunded without interest will be subject to 20% deductions from the amounts of registration, first installment of reservation and second reservation. In case the reservation amount has not been deposited by the applicant, then also such reservation amount, which has become due, will be counted towards deduction calculations.”

7.      Having carefully perused the original Brochure, issued by the petitioners, I am in agreement with the Fora below that the petitioners were entitled to deduct 20% of the Registration Money from the amount which the complainant had deposited with them. On a conjoint reading of Clauses (c) & (d), it is evident that if an allottee sought refund without paying even a single installment, in that case only 20% of the Registration Money was to be deductible and the balance amount had to be refunded to him without any interest. On the other hand, if the allottee made the payment of one or more installments and then applied for refund, 20% of the registration amount as well as the installments which had become due at that time would be deductible. The deduction in the first position will be under Clause (c) whereas the deduction in the second position will be under Clause (d).

8.      Admittedly, the complainant did not deposit any installment, he having deposited only the registration money. Therefore, only a sum of Rs.11,000/- being 20% of the registration money was deductible. The balance amount was refundable to him and it has rightly been held by the Fora below. However, considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, the interest is reduced from 12% to 9% per annum. The payment in terms of this order shall be made within eight weeks from today, failing which the interest shall be payable @ 12% per annum w.e.f. eight weeks from today. The cost of litigation as awarded by the Fora below shall also be paid. The revision petition stands disposed of.

......................................
(V. K. JAIN, J.)
PRESIDING MEMBER
 

SS/3