RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD Vs. GAJANAND SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the order dated 11.4.2007 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan (in short 'the State Commission') the Rajasthan Housing Board, the petitioner has filed this revision petition before this Commission.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the complainant /respondent applied for a house on 23.10.1982 against the advertisement from the petitioner. The reservation letter dated 03.02.1989 was sent informing the proposed allotment of house no.31/176 to the complainant and he was asked to deposit the seed money in three instalments. The first instalment of Rs.2000/- was to be deposited within one month and next instalment of Rs.2000/- was to be deposited within seven months and last instalment of Rs.1600/- was to be deposited within 13 months. The respondent deposited the seed money instalments in a delayed manner. Still he received a letter of allotment dated 17.12.1991 from the petitioner informing him to deposit Rs.36,270/- within 3 months. The respondent deposited Rs.33,664/- on 20.3.1992, however, the Rajasthan Housing Board, the petitioner again reminded the respondent by their letter dated 7.9.1992 for depositing Rs.36,270/- with interest or the allotment would be cancelled. The respondent did not deposit any money further and allotment was cancelled on 26.11.1992. The respondent deposited the remaining money Rs.2606/- on 8.01.1993 and approached the Rajasthan Housing Board for restoration of the allotment. He was informed by the petitioner that the respondent will have to deposit Rs.1000/- as a renewal fee and he will be allotted the house at current prices. The respondent then filed a complaint before the District Forum-Consumer Protection Shivir, Jaipur, (in short 'the District Forum') which vide its order dated 23.2.2005 allowed the complaint and passed the following orders:-

(3.) The petitioner/opposite party, Rajasthan Housing Board filed an Appeal No.183 of 2007 and the complainant also filed an Appeal No.531 of 2005 before the State Commission, which dismissed both these appeals vide its order dated 11.4.2007