PRITPAL KAUR Vs. RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 29.05.2014 of the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench at Kota ('the State Commission') in Appeal no. 114 of 2012.

(2.) The brief facts of the case as per the petitioner/ complainant are that the petitioner has registered for a house by depositing an amount of Rs.10,000/- but no house was allotted by the respondent for a period of 20 years. On 27.03.1999 a Dhancha (Frame) of a house was allotted to the petitioner for an amount of Rs.6,71,803/- on an instalment of Rs.3,500/- per month. The petitioner refused to take the said house and requested the respondent to give the deposited money back to her along with interest. The petitioner filed case no. 154/ 2002 before the District Forum and the District Forum decided the same on 10.02.2004 in which it was held that the respondent was guilty of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service and in case the petitioner was not interested for getting a residential house then the petitioner was entitled to take her money back along with interest from the respondent. The respondent can neither force the petitioner to accept allotment of a costly house which was beyond her capacity nor can it allot any Dhancha (Frame) of costly house in place of house of lower group income for which she applied forcibly without consent and permission of the allottee. The respondent filed an appeal no. 604/04 against the order of District Forum which was dismissed on 19.01.2007. The petitioner wrote various letters for allotting her a residential house for which she had applied. A final letter was sent on 04.05.2007 but no reply was given by the respondent. The petitioner had prayed to allot her house no. 5/216, Swami Vivekanand Nagar or any other house of same date and same category.

(3.) The respondent Housing Board in their reply stated that after dismissal of the complaint by the State Commission, the deposited amount has been returned. The petitioner was thus thereafter not entitled to get any residential house. The petitioner has filed the complaint on the false facts by concealing material facts. The petitioner had filed an earlier complaint on the basis of false facts, which was dismissed by the Forum and on the basis of provisions of resjudicata no complaint can be filed again on the basis of same facts. The deposit had been returned along with interest as per the order of the District Forum which was confirmed by the State Commission. Further, there was, thereafter no privity of contract remained between both the parties. The respondent prayed that the complaint be dismissed with cost.