RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD Vs. VINAY KUMAR GOYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the orders dated 10.07.2012 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (in short, 'the State Commission') in Appeal No. 1443/2011 Rajasthan Housing Board Vs. Vinay Kumar Goyal by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was upheld.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that Complainant / Respondent deposited ?2,000/ - on 21.08.1989 with OP/petitioner for registration of house in lower income group at Jaipur. He was allotted registration number. Later on, he filed application for modification of income group and as per requirement of OP, complainant submitted has consent with income certificate, but his request remained unattended for long period. OP without complainant's consent changed registration for Sanganer from Jaipur. Complainant deposited ?40,000/ - in self -financing scheme on 7.3.2005, but his name was not included in lottery draw and this amount was returned to him without assigning any reason. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP resisted complaint and submitted that allotment letter no. 8681 dated 24.12.1993 was issued and as per allotment letter, complainant failed to pay instalments. OP issued another letter no. 473 dated 16.12.1999 and asked for depositing money, but money was not deposited. Complainant filed income certificate of his father in place of his own income certificate. It was further submitted that Sanganer also falls within Jaipur and as complainant's name was not found in draw of lottery his money was returned and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP to treat complainant's seniority from March, 2005 in the category of MIG B and directed to give house in Mansarovar Scheme along with Rs.1,00,000/ - as compensation and Rs.3,000/ - as cost of the claim. Appeal filed by OP was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed.

(3.) NONE appeared for respondent even after service of notice.