HIMACHAL PRADESH HOUSING BOARD Vs. RAHUL VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order dated 8.3.2004 of Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla allowing appeal filed by respondents/complainant against the order dated 7.10.2002 of a District Forum and ordering the petitioner/opposite party to refund amount of Rs. 1,05,000/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint till realisation.

(2.) In March 1992, petitioner Board had issued advertisement inviting applications for allotment of categories I, II and III flats at Strawberry Hills, Shimla. Pursuant to that advertisement respondent No. 2 sent application along with earnest money of Rs. 25,000/- for allotment of a category I flat. It was alleged that by the order dated 17.3.1992 the Himachal Pradesh High Court stayed land acquisition proceedings and the possession of land over which flats were to be constructed could not be taken over by petitioner Board. By the order dated 6.1.1994 High Court quashed the land acquisition proceedings and held that after issue of notification under Section 4, the Land Acquisition Officer will issue notices to the land owners and decide their objections after giving personal hearing to them. It was further alleged that respondent No. 2 who was to retire shortly, made a representation dated 26.12.1995 to P.W.D. Minister to allot a flat out of discretionary quota from already constructed flats. On 16.2.1996 the petitioner Board considered the request of respondent No. 2 and it was decided to allot a flat to him out of discretionary quota. By the letter dated 10.5.1996, petitioner Board offered a flat to respondent No. 2 at the cost of Rs. 6,38,000/-. Respondent No. 2 deposited amount of Rs. 6,13,000/- on 24.5.1996. Amount of Rs. 25,000/- deposited by way of earnest money was adjusted towards sale consideration. Respondent No. 2 took possession of the flat on 21.6.1996. Later on the allotted flat at the request of respondent No. 2 was transferred in the name of his son respondent No. 1. Flat of the category allotted to respondent No. 2 was given to other allottees at Rs. 5,33,000/-. So, alleging deficiency in service the respondents filed complaint seeking refund of Rs. 1,05,000/- with interest which was contested by the petitioner Board. Though complaint for refund of amount was dismissed by the District Forum but appeal filed against that order by the respondents was allowed by the State Commission.

(3.) Submission advanced by Mr. Y. Prabhakara Rao for petitioner was that respondent No. 2 who was allotted flat out of discretionary quota cannot claim equality with other allottees who were allotted flats at Rs. 5,33,000/- under self-financing scheme. In support of this submission, our attention was drawn particularly to para 5 of the written version on merits filed by petitioner Board before the District Forum. Copy of written version is placed at pages 60-69. In said para 5 it was alleged that flats were constructed under self-financing scheme from the funds of allottees; each allottee had made payment of Rs. 4,46,250/- during construction and on cost of flat being fixed at Rs. 5,33,000/- on 18.5.2004, the balance amount was paid by the allottees prior to taking possession of the flats. Respondent No. 2 who paid Rs. 6,13,000/- much later on 25.4.1996, obviously, cannot claim parity as regards cost of allotted flat with other allottees who paid the said amount during construction and balance (Rs. 5,33,000.00 - Rs. 4,46,250.00) prior to taking over possession of flats. State Commission had, thus, acted erroneously in ordering the refund of Rs. 1,05,000/- with interest by the petitioner Board. Decision in III (2002) CPJ 132 (NC)=R.P. No. 1268/98, V.K. Kathuria v. D.D.A., decided on 16.8.2002 has no applicability to this case.