At, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN
By, PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioners: R.K. Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent: In person.
Late Smt. Vasundhara Harit, mother of the complainant got herself registered in the category of ‘Economically Weaker Sections’, under General Registration Scheme, 1982 of Rajasthan Housing Board, depositing a registration fee of Rs.500/- for the purpose. A letter was sent to her on 11.8.1987, inviting option out of three Schemes, namely, Mansarovar, Malviya Nagar and Van Vihar Scheme. The mother of the complainant opted for Mansarovar Scheme and deposited the required amount of Rs.900/- for this purpose. Thereafter, a letter dated 3.1.1994 was allegedly issued to her asking her to deposit the advance payment as per the installments given in the said letter. According to the complainant, the aforesaid letter dated 3.1.1994 was never received by his mother and, therefore, she got no opportunity to deposit the installments. The mother of the complainant having died without any allotment to her, the complainant who is an Advocate by profession, approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint, seeking allotment of a house in Mansarovar Scheme alongwith compensation etc.
2. The complaint was resisted by the petitioners primarily on the ground that the deceased had failed to pay installments in terms of the letter dated 3.1.1994 and subsequent letter dated 18.9.1999 issued in her name, the petitioners being unaware of her death. It was also pointed out that in the written version that the intimation of the death of the deceased was never given to the petitioners and that she had nominated her daughter, namely, Vasumati Harit as her nominee.
3. The District Forum directed the petitioners to allot a house at the rates prevalent on 18.9.1999 to the complainant and also directed the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation to him.
4. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the petitioners approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal having been dismissed, the petitioners are before this Commission.
5. Though the petitioners claim to have demanded seed money in installments from late Smt. Vasundhara Harit on 3.1.1994, no proof of the service or even dispatch of the said letter to her was produced before the District Forum. In my opinion since the complainant had claimed that no allotment had been made to his mother, it was necessary for the petitioners not only to file a copy of the letter dated 3.1.1994 but also to prove due service of the said letter on the mother of the complainant. No such proof having been filed by them, the Fora below were justified in holding that the said letter dated 3.1.1994 had never been served upon her.
6. As noted earlier, the letter dated 3.1.1994 was followed by a letter dated 18.9.1999. The receipt of the said letter during pendency of the consumer complaint before the District Forum has not been disputed by the complainant but his submission is that the said letter offered allotment in Sanganer and not in Jaipur for which his mother had opted in terms of the option given to her by the petitioners vide letter dated 11.8.1987.
7. The position as on today is that the mother of the complainant was registered for allotment of a house/flat in Sanganer though she opted for allotment of a house in Mansarovar. The said option, according to the petitioners was available only in respect of some ready built houses in three Schemes, namely, Van Vihar Scheme, Malviya Nagar Scheme and Mansarovar Scheme. The said houses according to the petitioners are not presently available with them and they can provide only a residential flat to the complainant at the places where such a flat may be available with them.
8. Considering all the facts and circumstances including the failure of the petitioners to prove the service of the reservation letter dated 3.1.1994 and the failure of the complainant to make deposit in terms of the subsequent letter dated 18.9.1999, the revision petition is disposed of with the following directions:-
1. The petitioners shall verify the Relinquishment Deeds purporting to be executed by Vasumati Arora and Dr. Sudhanshu Harit sister and brother respectively of the complainant and if on verification the said Relinquishment Deeds are found to be genuine and it is also verified that late Smt. Vasundhara Harit was survived only by three Legal Heirs, namely, the complainant- Shri. V.V. Harit, son - Dr. Sudhanshu Harit and daughter - Vasumati, the registration shall be transferred in the name of the complainant.
2. The petitioners shall issue allotment letter at the current price, in respect of an independent house if available with it under EWS, in the city of Sanganer. If an independent house is not available in EWS Category, a residential flat
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
in the said Categoryshall be allotted to the complainant at the current price. 3. The petitioners shall permit the complainant to make payment in instalments as per its rules. The payment in terms of the Allotment-cum-Demand Letter to be issued by the petitioners in terms of this order, shall be made within four weeks of receipt of the said allotment letter. 4. The possession of the allotted house/flat shall be delivered to the complainant within four weeks of he complying with the Allotment-cum-Demand Letter.