RAJ KUMAR BAJAJ Vs. CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a complaint filed by Shri Raj Kumar Bajaj against the respondent Chandigarh Housing Board with the allegations which are these. In response to an advertisement issued by the respondent inviting applications for allotment of constructed house units, the complainant filed the application for the same. The draw of lots amongst the applicants was held on 20/2/1988 and the complainant was declared successful. He was accordingly allotted the First Floor in a category-II flat in Sec.47, Chandigarh vide allotment letter dated 21/4/1988 (copy Annexure-C/1 ). The complainant started paying installments and claimed to have paid all the installments due until date. The respondent vide their letter dated 22/5/1989 called upon the complainant to indicate his option for the allotment of a category-II Flat in Sector 45-A, Chandigarh. Copy of the said letter is Annexure C-II. The complainant gave his option vide Annexure C-fell agreeing to the allotment of a revised design flat in Sector 45-A, Chandigarh. However, when the draw of lots for the allotment of flats in Sector-45 was made, the name of the complainant was not included in the list of applicants with the result that no allotment was made in his favour. The complainant claimed that he had suffered financial loss and prayed for a direction to the respondent to allot him one category-II revised design (1228 Sq. ft) flat in Sector 45-A, Chandigarh in lieu of flat allotted to him in Sector 47, Chandigarh of which the possession had not been given to him so far.

(2.) The respondent Board filed reply to the above complaint inter alia contending that the complaint was not maintainable as this Commission had no jurisdiction, the stand being that neither any goods have been sold nor any service was involved. On merits, it was stated that no action regarding the option for allotment of flats in Sector 45 had been taken. The reason for this is stated thus "this was decided keeping in view the various complications involved". However it was admitted that the name of the complainant had been considered in the draw of lots held on 20.02.88 in consequence of which he was allotted 1st Floor Flat No.2064/1, Sector 47-C, Chandigarh. The respondent therefore refuted its liability to allot a Flat to the complainant in Sector 45, Chandigarh, even though he was called upon to exercise an option for this purpose, which he did.

(3.) So far as the preliminary objection of the respondent regarding the jurisdiction of the Commission is concerned, the objection raised has by now been settled by various decisions of the National Commission in which it has been held that the activity of the Housing Board for the allotment of plots/houses falls within the definition of' service' and hence a person affected by the same can claim relief under the Consumer Protection Act. The objection is, therefore, overruled.