RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT, JODHPUR Vs. SHASHI KUMAR PAREEK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 5.2.1996 passed by the learned District Forum, Jodhpur whereby the complaint of the complainant -respondent was allowed.

(2.) THE brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that the complainant who is a member of the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service, was granted a Subsidised Housing Loan of Rs. 96,693 by the Rajasthan High Court in January, 1994 under the Rajasthan Subsidised Housing Loans Rules, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 1993 Rules ) for purchase of a house from Rajasthan Housing Board. Subsequently, an amended order was issued by the High Court on 7.3.1994 on administrative side that the recovery of the loan and interest thereon shall be recovered simultaneously from the monthly pay bills of the complainant. The complainant was required to repay the loan with interest in Equated Monthly Instalments of Rs. 1,241.11. The house was mortgaged jointly to the Government and the Housing Development Finance Corporation by way of equitable mortgage created by the complainant. The complainant alleged that he is a consumer of the appellants because he had taken a loan and is paying interest thereon.

(3.) THE allegation of the complainant is that the appellant State Government has wrongly calculated E.M.Is. in the Annexure A enclosed with the 1993 Rules. The complainant had, therefore, requested the appellant High Court to correct the E.M.I. from Rs. 1,241.11 to Rs. 1,176.41 and had sent a formula by which the E.M.I. should be calculated. The matter was referred by the employer to the State Government but the State Government turned down the request of the complainant on the ground that the loan taken by the State Government from the H.D.F.C. (second respondent) is paid according to the formula as laid down in their letter dated 3.1.1994 and as such it is not possible to make any changes in the formula. The complainant alleged that the second respondent cannot charge interest from the appellant State Government and the State Government should have got the monthly instalments corrected and since the appellants had not done so, there is deficiency in service on their part. The complainant, therefore, filed a complaint in the Forum below and claimed reduction of the E.M.I., refund of the excess amount collected from him, and damages on account of mental agony and cost of litigation.