RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD JAIPUR Vs. VEER SINGH MEHTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision Petition has arisen out of the Order dated 29th June, passed by the Rajasthan State Commission at Jaipur upholding the order of the District Forum, Jaipur dated 22.6.92 but reducing the compensation by Rs. 2,100/ - from the special damages of Rs. 23,900/ - awarded by the District Forum.

(2.) THE facts as found by the District Forum, Jaipur and upheld by the State Commission may briefly be noticed. The Rajasthan Housing Board (for short called Board) - Opposite Party started General Registration Scheme for allotment of builtup houses/flats. The complainant got himself registered for a builtup house for Lower Income Group at Jaipur vide Application No. H. 4/6438/JPR/T/73. The complainant subsequently got his registration converted from Lower Income Group to Middle Income Group -B and deposited Rs. 4,500/ - on 28.1.1980 as additional registration charges. The Complainant was informed by the Board that his priority in MIG -B Category house is 125. The Board called upon the Complainant in its letter dated 19.5.87 to deposit the seed money in two instalments of Rs. 6000/ - each. The instalments were duly deposited by the Complainant on 2.6.87 and 2.11.87 within the time allowed by the Board. A draw of lots was held by the Board in the year 1987/1988, but the name of the Complainant was not included in the lottery for the reason that the receipt of deposit of instalments for seed money had not reached in the office of the Board. The Complain ant made a representation on 7.4.88 against the non -inclusion of his name in the draw of lots due to the negligence of the Board. The representation was accepted and the Board by its resolution decided to allot house No. 47/67 to the Complainant and a letter dated 23.11.88 was sent to the Complainant to that effect. When the Complainant went to see the house it was found that the house had already been allotted and in possession of a third person. The Complainant represented once again. Consequently the Board vide its letter dated 19.7.89 allotted house No. 119/84 which was MIG -A Category house. The Complainant again represented and ultimately the Board by allotment letter dated 19.1.91 allotted another house No. 119/329 to the Complainant. In this allotment letter, the plot cost was mentioned as Rs. 22,773.00 and cost of construction as Rs. 71,245/ - and extra cost Rs.

(3.) WE have heard Mr. Badridas Sharma, Counsel for the Petitioner herein and Mr. Vivek Sharma, Counsel for the Respondent -Complainant and have gone through the records. On the finding of fact recorded by the District Forum and upheld by the State Commission as noticed by this Commission in the earlier part of the order, the gross negligence of the Board is writ large on the record. The grounds of revision also do not question the concurrent finding of negligence on the part of the Board. The feeble argument of Mr. Badridas Sharma that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Board is thus stated to be rejected. The main submission of Mr. Badridas Sharma is that the State Commission as well as the District Forum committed material illegality in the exercise of jurisdiction in awarding damages for the period of about two years on the ground of alleged loss of rent which the Complainant could have realised from the house during the said period. The contention is that the amount of loss of rent claimed as damages is too remote besides there being no evidence of the market value of the rent of the house during that period. The further submission is that the FORA below have committed illegality in the exercise of jurisdiction in awarding interest at the rate of 13% per annum on the difference of the cost of the house and at the same time awarding damages by way of non -receipt of rent. It is also contended that the award of damages of Rs. 4,800/ - in lieu of rebate on the alleged ground of the income tax is also without jurisdiction.