RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD Vs. NISHANT AGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two cross appeals have been filed against the judgment dated 21.6.2010 passed by the District Forum, Jaipur II, Jaipur.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that Nishant Agarwal filed a complaint before the District Forum that he had applied for a house in Dwarkapuri Multistorey Residential Scheme of the Rajasthan Housing Board. The condition under this scheme was that this scheme was for the poor persons whose monthly income did not exceed Rs. 5,000 per month. Nishant Agarwal submitted a certificate of his income for Rs.4,000 per month and deposited Rs. 10,000 as application money. The respondents rejected his application on the ground that on verification it has been found that his income exceeded Rs.5,000 and a cheque of Rs. 9,500 was sent to him as refund of the application money after deducting Rs. 500 as processing charges. The District Forum after enquiring into this complaint, in para 8 of the judgment concluded that respondents have not been able to prove that income of Nishant Agarwal exceeded Rs. 5000. The learned District Forum held that it was certainly deficiency in service on the part of Rajasthan Housing Board but the District Forum ordered that on this ground Rs. 500 deducted from the application money was not justified. It ordered the refund of Rs. 500 to the complainant and Rs. 25,000 as compensation for mental agony along with Rs. 2,500 as costs. The District Forum also concluded that since the scheme has been completed, therefore, it will not be possible for the respondents to allot him any house now. Hence, the compensation has been awarded.

(3.) THE Rajasthan Housing Board has appealed against the order of the District Forum against the grant of compensation of Rs. 2,500 and ordering refund of Rs. 500 while the complainant has appealed against the order of the District Forum on the ground that even after holding that there was clearcut deficiency in service on the part of the Rajasthan Housing Board, no suitable relief was granted to him. In course of arguments the complainant had produced information obtained by him from the Rajasthan Housing Board under the Right to Information Act which states that first phase of Dwarkapuri has been completed and 295 applicants have been allotted houses and the second phase of the scheme is yet to began. The learned Counsel for the complainant has also cited the judgment dated 19.7.2010 of the National Commission in the case of Rajasthan HousingBoardv. Ku. Babita Kanwar, Revision Petition No. 4013/10, in which the National Commission held that Housing Board wrongly rejected the application and petitioner was liable to allot the flat instead of compensation. The learned Counsel for the Rajasthan Housing Board has strongly argued that the complainant gave wrong statement regarding his income. A verification by the representative appointed by the Housing Board was conducted which showed that income of Nishant Agarwal was more than Rs. 5,000. He has drawn my attention to the report prepared by the representative of the Housing Board. H cited an authority of Hon'ble Supreme Court Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Ved Prakash Agarwal,2008 2 CPJ 13 but this citation on the other hand helps the complainant. Supreme Court held that Authority was liable to allot plot either in existing scheme or in other schemes.