RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD Vs. BHAGTINDRA KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order of the learned District Forum, Bikaner dated 31.1.1996 whereby the complaint filed by the respondent has been allowed and the appellant has been directed to allot to the respondent a house of the same area which was equal in area to house No.3/397 allotted to the respondent in Mukta Prasad Nagar, Bikaner in the year 1993 on the cost prevailing in the year 1983 with a further direction to pay to the respondent Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical discomfort and Rs.1,000/- as cost of litigation.

(2.) Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal in brief are that the respondent had got himself registered with the appellant Board on 12.11.1979 after paying a registration amount of Rs.1,800/- and thereafter he paid two instalments of Rs.1,450/- each to the appellant Board. In the lottery drawn by the appellant on 22.9.1983, he was allotted house No.3/397 in Mukta Prasad Nagar, Bikaner. The grievance of the respondent was that in spite of allotment of house, he was not delivered possession of the house for a pretty long time and when contacted, he was told by the appellant that some other person is in unauthorised possession of the house bearing No.3/397 allotted to him. The respondent, thereafter, requested to allot him an alternative house but no heed was paid to him earlier than 17.11.1994 when through this communication, the appellant Board directed the respondent to accept House No.3/397 allotted to him earlier; at the prevailing market rate. The respondent was not prepared for it because the house in question was still in possession of some other person. Having failed to obtain the possession of the house from the appellant Board, he approached the learned District Forum for allotment of the house as also for claiming compensation for mental agony and physical discomfort.

(3.) The appellant resisted the complaint by filing a written version and insisted that the respondent has to accept the allotted house No.3/397 at the current market rate. It also averred that the matter of pricing/costing cannot be a subject matter of a consumer dispute. The learned District Forum after evaluation of the evidence tendered before it decreed the claim as stated earlier.