ANKESH GOYAL S/O MOHAN LALA GOYAL Vs. CHAIRMAN, RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD & ANR; ESTATE MANAGERHOUSING BOARD FIRST SANGANER JAIPUR RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this Revision Petition under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the Act), is to the order dated 08.09.2016 in Appeal No. 690 of 2015 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur, Rajasthan (in short, the State Commission). By the impugned order, the State Commission allowed the appeal preferred by the Housing Board and dismissed the Complaint as not maintainable on the ground that it was barred by limitation and that the Complainant's registration was not accepted, hence he is not a 'Consumer'.

(2.) The facts in brief are that the Complainant had deposited an amount of Rs. 10,000/- towards Registration and applied in one Special Registration Scheme, 2005 vide application No. 19823 for a Multi-Storied Housing Scheme in Dwarkapuri, Pratap Nagar, Sanganer. It was stated that after due scrutiny of the application, it was accepted by the Housing Board in the select list on Priority No. 33/G-2/or-3 for allotment of house to him. Thereafter, it was averred that the job of ascertaining eligibility to the Scheme was entrusted upon a private agency, whose employee demanded an amount of Rs. 2,000/- from the Complainant, which he had refused to pay and for this reason, the agency had given a report that the Complainant was not eligible for the said Scheme. While so, on behalf of the Housing Board, Union Bank of India sent to the Complainant a cheque of Rs. 9,500/- after deducting Rs. 500/-. After the Registration amount was refunded on 07.05.2007, the Complainant did not accept the same and issued a letter dated 16.11.2007 and returned the cheque to the Housing Board. He had also written a letter on 11.08.2007 to the Chairman, Housing Board, stating that his eligibility was wrongly cancelled and made a request to revive his Registration. The Complainant made several requests to the Housing Board and he was assured that his application was being sympathetically considered.

(3.) Vexed with the attitude of the Housing Board, the Complainant got issued a legal notice to the Opposite Parties on 22.06.2012, but received no reply. Hence, he approached the District Forum seeking direction for allotment of the house in the aforesaid scheme or in any other scheme, together with payment of compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and litigation costs.