RATAN KUMAR THAKUR Vs. RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant got himself registered under MIG 'a' for allotment of a house under General Registration Scheme, 1979 dated Oct.1 to Jan.1980. His number was H8/2895/jpr/mi79/5134. His name was registered vide Anx.1 dated 26.10.80. The opposite parties changed the procedure in the year 1981 and invited option for conversion from MIG 'a' to MIG 'b'. The complainant submitted application and gave his option and deposited extra sum of Rs.800/- on 26.5.82. The name of the complainant was registered as MIG 'b' and number allotted was 32341. On 28.6.83 house No.11/ 76 F. F. Malviya Nagar was allotted to him but according to the complainant he was not given possession until the date of the filing of the complaint, though he had deposited seed money amounting to Rs.12,000/- with the opposite parties. The Complainant received letter No.30 Aa. Aa/jc-1/ 89.90/518 dated 22.6.89 from the Estate Officer, Division I informing him that on account of unforeseen reasons the house is incomplete and if he wants to take its possession as JAISA HAI USI AWASTHA MAI he may do so within one month. The complainant went to the office of the opposite party to enquire about the cost of the house JAISA HAI USI AWASTHA MAI then he was told that the cost of house is Rs.1,15,000/-. The complainant was surprised to learn this as the possible estimated cost was Rs.60,000/-. The complainant alleged that after the issuance of the allotment letter, he got the loan for Rs.40,000/- sanctioned and withdrew first instalment of Rs.12,000/- and deposited it as seed money with the opposite parties. As the possession of the house was not delivered to the complainant, the complainant's balance of loan was cancelled by the Bank and whatever amount was outstanding as loan, he had to pay interest and he was required to pay instalments of Rs.12,000/- to the Bank. It is said that the house No.11/76 was allotted to him in 1986 and its possession ought to have been delivered with six months but the opposite parties despite assurance did not deliver the possession. The complainant came to know that in the Rajasthan Patrika dated 14.10.89 a notice was issued which has been produced by the complainant as Anx.4 in which it was written that the possession of the house on the existing condition should be taken and consent was sought within three days. The name of the complainant was shown at S. No.2. The complainant came to know about this notice at Kishangarh and it was not possible for him to take any proceedings in this respect at Jaipur. The complainant has stated that in February, he went to see the house. He found that the house was in dilapidated condition inasmuch as there was no flooring, no kitchen, no bathroom, no latrine ready in it. There was no proper light fitting. The light fitting was not in order. The material used was of inferior quality. According to the complainant a sum of Rs.60,000/- to Rs.70,000/- for making the house in a living condition will have to be spent. Thus, the house will cost 1 lacs which cannot be considered as proper. The complainant has alleged that in accordance with General Registration Scheme, 1979 page 14, 10% of the cost could only be increased of the estimated cost but for that also reasons are necessary. Upto the completion of the house he will be required to pay three times of original estimated the cost. The opposite parties failed to deliver possession to the complainant and threatened to cancel the registration. It was submitted that there was no provision for allotting the house on flat system and other persons were allotted independent houses. It was said that the house was allotted to the complainant in 1983 but its possession is being delivered in 1990 in dilapidated condition. It was alleged that when the house was allotted in 1990 there is no justification to charge cost prevailing in 1990 and as such there is violation of the conditions mentioned in the General Registration Scheme, 1979. It was averred that whatever measurements were given in the General Registration Scheme, 1979, those measurements have also been reduced and houses have been converted into flat system which is improper. The complainant submitted that the opposite parties ought to have completed the house within six months but it was not completed. Photos were submitted in support of this. The complainant has alleged that as the opposite parties did not allot the house in time he is entitled to Rs.800/- per month as rent. He has also alleged that on account of various acts of commission and omission of the opposite parties, he had to come to the office of the opposite parties from 1983 upto the date of the filing of the complaint atleast for 100 times. All this shows that the service rendered by the opposite parties is deficient and on account of that the complainant has suffered bodily pain and mental agony. The complainant in his complaint dated 23.3.90 prayed: 1. that the complainant should be allotted an independent house according to the scheme;

(2.) That the complainant should be allotted a house on payment of Rs.68,000/- in accordance with 1983 costing;

(3.) That from 1983 upto the date of the delivery of possession compensation @ 800/- per month amounting to Rs.67,200/- should be awarded. A sum of Rs.1,68,000/- may also be awarded for bodily and financial loss @ Rs.2,000/- per month;