PER MR PREM NARAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER

                The present revision petition no. 2318 of 2018 has been filed by the Rajasthan Housing Board against the judgment dated 17.05.2018 of the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (‘the State Commission’) in Appeal no. 1015 of 2017.

2.     The brief facts of the case are that the respondent complainant applied for registration on 30.01.1990 under Kalpataru Registration Scheme for HIG-B category house to the petitioner/ opposite party. The OP granted priority number JPR/H2/90/0160013 on 01.07.1990 in the said scheme. As no house was allotted to the complainant, the complainant wrote several letters to OP. The complainant received a letter dated 31.08.2005 from OP intimating him regarding the difference in signature in the letter given by him and non-availability of the house in the scheme and Mansarovar Housing Scheme as well, however, the complainant could be allotted house in Sanganer Housing Scheme if the complainant applies to OP with stamp paper attested by First Class Judicial Magistrate.

3.     On the basis of above mentioned letter, the complainant produced stamp paper duly attested by Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The complainant received another letter dated 01.09.2007 from OP wherein OP sought consent from the complainant in respect of decision taken by the Board that in case the complainant is desirous to take the house in Pratap Nagar Scheme, he can send his letter within 15 days. The complainant gave his consent for the allotment and paid the amount as demanded by the OP Board regarding the price of the house and other charges but still no house was allotted to him.

4.     Thereafter, the complainant received a letter dated 21.07.2008 from OP which stated that the amount of Rs.1,90,000/- deposited by the complainant has been refunded and his priority has been kept intact. The OP despite the passage of 8 months after sending this letter, neither any information regarding the allotment of any house was given nor allotted any house to the complainant. Aggrieved by the act of OP, the complainant filed a Consumer Complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bench no.1, Jaipur (‘the District Forum’) being complaint no. 688 of 2012 (Old no. 257 of 2009).

5.      The District Forum vide its order dated 17.07.2017 allowed the complaint with a cost of Rs.20,000/-. The District Forum directed the OP to fix the price of the flat/ house allotted on 11.03.2016 through a lottery at the prevailing rate on 28.04.2009 (date of filing the complaint). Further, the complainant was declared entitled to interest @ 18% on the deposited amount from the date of deposit till the possession of the flat/ house is handed over. As such, after adjusting the actual amount as well as interest payable as stated in the order, the OP will be entitled to get the remaining amount from the complainant on the date of possession. Moreover, the complainant was also granted Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation.

6.     Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the Rajasthan Housing Board preferred an appeal no.1015 of 2017 before the State Commission. The State Commission vide its order dated 17.05.2018 has dismissed the appeal of the Board.

7.     Dissatisfied by the order of the State Commission, the Rajasthan Housing Board/ OP has filed the present revision petition before this Commission.

8.     Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the main grievance of the petitioner Board is that the fora below have allowed the complainant to purchase the allotted house at the price prevailing on the date of filing of the complaint in the year 2009. The fact is that for the people registered with the Housing Board, as and when their priority comes their names are taken up for draw of lottery and till that time, they do not get any allotment of the plot or the house. It does not mean that the Housing Board had delayed the allotment to that particular person. It is not the case of the complainant that he was entitled to get the allotment, because the persons with lower priority were given the house. The delay in his allotment cannot be the reason for allotment of house at old price. The general rule of the Housing Board is that when the name of a person stands drawn in the lottery, the cost of that property as arrived at by the Housing Board at that time is to be paid. Thus, the orders of the fora below are totally illegal and should not be allowed to sustain against the public interest.

9.      The District Forum has also awarded compensation of Rs.5.00 lakh to the complainant to be paid by the petitioner Board. In fact, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner Board for which compensation should be granted to the complainant.

10.   On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/ complainant stated that the registration was made in the year 1990 under the Kalpataru Registration Scheme for HIG B Category House. Since then on many occasions the petitioner Board had asked the consent of the complainant to take the house under different schemes of the petitioner Board, but even after giving the consent by the complainant, the petitioner never allotted any house to the complainant and finally complaint was filed in the year 2009. The petitioner/ opposite party issued a letter dated 15.08.2010 demanding three instalments of Rs.1.00 lakh each in the shape of seed money/ earnest money. The complainant paid the three instalments of Rs.1.00 lakh each but still no house was allotted. During the pendency of the case, the complainant was allotted HIG House by draw of lottery on 11.03.2016. As the complainant was suffering since 1990, the District Forum has rightly allowed this house to be given to the complainant at a price of 2009 when the complaint was filed. The State Commission has also confirmed the order of the District Forum. This Commission has limited jurisdiction under the revision petition against the concurrent orders passed by the fora below.

11.   We have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record. It is true that the registration was made in the year 1990 but the complainant succeeded only in the lottery draw in the year 2016. The District Forum has not given any ground for ordering allotment of house at a price prevailing in the year 2009 when the complaint was filed. In fact, the grievance of the complainant was pending since 1990, but he filed the complaint in the year 2009. Had he filed the complaint in any year between 1990 and 2009, it would not have meant that the complainant would get the house at a price prevailing on the date of filing of the complaint. If a house was allotted to him in the year 2009 and then if he would not have become successful in taking the possession and another house would have been allotted in that situation, then the order of the District Forum would have been valid. In the present case, the house has been allotted only in the year 2016, then in our view, there should not be any question of allotting a house at a price prevailing in the year 2009. It is also surprising to note that when the property has been allotted to the complainant by draw of lottery then, why the petitioner Board has not done the costing of the house. This is the general practice prevailing in the Housing Boards, that if a house is allotted in the lottery, allotment letter is sent to the allottee clearly informing the total price, based on the costing of the house and the mode of payment. It is not clear whether this has been done in the present case.

12.   In our view, the complainant should be given the house on the same price on which other allottees in the same draw of lottery have been allotted similar house based on the costing of the house done by the petitioner Board. If a person has suffered due to certain acts and/or omissions of the opposite party, then that person is entitled to be compensated to some extent, however, the purchase price or the price for availment of service remains fixed between the parties. In the present case, it is clear that the petitioner Board has not allotted the house in spite of obtaining consent of the complainant on 2-3 occasions under different schemes and clearly the complainant suffered mental agony and harassment for such act of the opposite party. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- (Rupees three lakh fifty thousand only) would be reasonable and sufficient in the present case.

13.   Based on the above discussion, we allow the revision petition no. 2318 of 2018 and set aside the orders passed by the fora below, i.e., the order of the State Commission dated 17.05.2018 and the order of the District Forum dated 17.07.2017 and direct the petitioner/ Board to pay a compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- (rupees three lakh fifty thousand only) to the complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of this order. The petitioner Board will charge the same price from the complainant as would be charged from other allottees of the similar house in the same draw as per the costing of the house as per the rules of the Housing Board.