RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD & ORS Vs. ESTATE MANAGER, RAJASTHAN HOSUING BOARD, CIRCLE -FIRST JAIPUR RAJASTHAN; RESIDENT ENGINEER, RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD, CIRLCE-III, SANGANER JAIPUR RAJASTHAN; RAMESH CHANDRA MANGAL BRANCH MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURENCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 01.09.2011, passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Commission') in FA No. 2261/2004, "Ramesh Chandra vs. Rajasthan Housing Board & Anr." and FA No. 2270/2004, "Rajasthan Housing Board vs. Ramesh Chandra Mangal", vide which, the appeal No. 2261/2004, filed by the complainant was allowed, whereas appeal no. 2270/2004, filed by the opposite party (OP) Rajasthan Housing Board was ordered to be dismissed. These two appeals had been filed before the State Commission against the order passed by the District Forum, Jaipur in Consumer Complaint No. 784/2003, vide which, the said complaint was allowed and the OP Housing Board was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant on account of non-completion of repair works etc. in the house allotted to him and also to pay Rs. 500/- as cost of the complaint. In appeal, however, the State Commission modified the said order and directed that the OP Housing Board shall pay Rs. 50,000/- by way of compensation on account of financial loss to the complainant for repair work etc. and another sum of Rs. 50,000/- shall be given as compensation against mental agony.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the complainant/respondent Ramesh Chandra Mangal made deposits of sums of Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 20,000/- with the opposite party (OP) Rajasthan Housing Board on 25.02.1991 for booking a house with them. On 12.04.1992, a reservation letter was issued by the OPs to the complainant, asking him to deposit the necessary four instalments for the house allotted. The complainant deposited the said amount even before the stipulated date, following which, allotment letter dated 30.06.1995 was issued in his favour for house No. 67/2004, the total cost of which was stated to be Rs. 3,55,010/-. The complainant deposited the amount demanded, but on inspection of the said house, he learnt that the same was located at an isolated place. The complainant requested the OP Housing Board for allotment of another suitable house, following which, House No. 65/23, Pratap Nagar, Sanganer, Jaipur was allotted to him. However, the allotment letter of the said house was issued only on 13.06.1997 and then an amended allotment letter dated 02.11.1998 was issued. The possession of the said House is stated to have been delivered by the OPs on 14.12.1998, but the complainant alleged that the said house was a used house and needed lot of repairs. The complainant filed the consumer complaint in question, seeking directions to the OPs to remove the deficiencies in house No. 65/23 and also demanded interest @24% p.a. on the amount deposited till the removal of such deficiencies and a compensation of Rs. 2 lakh against mental harassment alongwith Rs. 15,000/- as litigation cost.

(3.) In their reply to the consumer complaint, the OP Housing Board stated that the possession of the house had been duly handed over to the complainant on the spot on 14.12.1998 and that he had signed declaration that he had fully inspected the house and was satisfied. The consumer complaint in question, should, therefore, be dismissed.