National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Shri H.P. Roy vs Government Of Bihar And Ors. on 29 May, 2002
Equivalent citations: I(2004)CPJ84(NC)
ORDER
B.K. Taimni, Member
1. This complaint has bene filed by the Complainant, Shri H.P. Roy alleging deficiencies in service, on the part of OP government of Bihar & Ors. for not allotting the house in which he was living as a tenant to him under Hire Purchase Scheme.
2. The facts of the case as per complaint are that the complaint was an employee of M/s. Tata Yodogawa Ltd. at Jamshedpur, Bihar where the employer had taken several houses n rent from the Bihar State Housing Board (BSHB) since, 1969. The Complainant was occupying one of them bearing No. M-24. Upon BSHB floating a scheme for permanent scheme of rental house in 1976, the Complainant registered himself after paying Registration fee of Rs. 50/-. Formal application was made in July, 1980. All the formalities were completed but the house was not allotted in his favour in spite of his having deposited Rs. 6,500/- in August, 1980 in the account of BSHB. According to complainant, he came to know (no time frame) that the house M-24 is going to allotted to one Executive Engineer of BSHB, in the light of which the Complainant and his General Manager met the Minister for Housing Bihar on 19th August 1980. The Hon'ble Minister assured them to settle the matter through another meeting. It is his case that some other similarly situated were allotted the house in which they were living but not him. This is a clear case of deficiency in service on the pat of Respondents. He did whatever he could but to no avail. For prosecuting the matter in good faith he was threatened and he had to leave Jamshedpur. After seeing an advertisement for a house in Calcutta for which he applied got the allotment, and moved to his house in 1993. He had to pay Rs. 8,39,628/- for this. Had the house been allotted in Jamshedpur, it would have costed only around Rs. 50,000/- only. The Complainant issued notice on May, 1996 fro refund of earnest money amounting to Rs. 6,500/- with interest @ 18% but received no reply. It is in these circumstances that the Complaint was filed with a prayer to direct the Respondent to pay him Rs. 30,65,473/- comprising of Rs. 20,06,473/- towards actual loss and Rs. 10.59 lakh towards compensation, harassment and mental agony.
3. No reply was filed by the Respondent in spite of notice. Cost imposed has also not bene paid and was absent on the last date of hearing, hence was proceeded ex-parte.
4.It is argued by the Complainant himself that great injustice has been done to him by not allotting House No. M-24, in which, he had been living since 1969, for which he applied for allotment in 1980 as per scheme of Bihar State Housing Board. He completed all the formalities i.e. deposited Rs. 6,500/- got a no-objection certificate from the employer even than non allotment of House No. M-24- while his other colleagues in similar circumstances were allotted the house they were living in-amounts to a deficiency in service. He argued that a meeting took place between the Minister for Housing in which officials of BSHB including their Law Officer were present. The Minister over-ruled all the objections raise by BSHB officials. Yet the house was not allotted. He issued notices but were no avail. he is an old man and suffers from several ailments but BSBH had no sympathy for a genuine person. Finally he had to settle in Calcutta in a much smaller house for which he had to pay a much higher price. The complaint is genuine, hence his complaint be allowed in full with costs.
5. We have seen the material brought on record and also field along with written arguments, as well as heard arguments. What we see is that the cause of action arose in July, 1980 when he for the fist time applied of a house, M-240 in a prescribed form. the meeting with the Minister took place in August, 1980. Almost all the correspondence-reminders, application etc. relate to the year, 1980 and a representation to Minster in March, 1981. The next letter written by the Complainant is in July, 1984 for refund of money as perhaps by that time he had been allotted a house in Slat Lake Calcutta in 1983. Then there is a notice in August, 1996 demanding a sum of Rs. 19.59 lakh and again a notice in January, 1997 demanding compensation of Rs. 24,24,942/-. In our view the cause of action at best could be said to have arisen in 1982 i.e. two years after his applying for a house in July, 1980. Filing complaint in 1997 under no circumstances can be said to be within the time limit both pre and post-amended of CPA in June, 1993. No amount of liberal interpretation can bring this application within the time limit prescribed under the Indian Limitation Act as was deemed to be applicable under CPA before its amendment as well as after the amendment to CPA in June, 1993 fixing a time limit of two years from the cause of action for filing a complaint. On merits also, we see that the case of the Complainant is that Bihar Government announced a scheme for permanent allotment of rental houses to the occupants on Hire Purchase Scheme. It is also stated that some of his similarly situated colleagues were allotted the houses they were living in. At no stage copy of the alleged Announcement/Scheme, terms and conditions have been brought on record to enable us to examine the case in that light. Nor for hat matter any affidavit/details have been brought on record, that similarly, situated colleagues were allotted houses. Even though the OPs were proceeded ex-pare, yet the Complainant had to prove his case. In the absence of any material referred to above, it is not possible for us to accepted the above contentions of the Complainant. There is nothing on record about any outcome of the meeting of the Complainant with the Minister for Housing. There is no allotment of any house whatever. To this extent, we see no deficiency.
6. From record, we also see that as early as July, 1984 the complaint requests for refund of the deposited amount, which is reiterated in his letter of May, 1996. Subsequently notice have been issued demanding huge amounts but in our view that has no co-relation with the decision of the subject. We find Bihar State Housing Board deficient at least on one point and that is its absolute silence on the request for refund of deposited amount. No house could be allotted to him can be over-looked but not the prayer for refund of his own deposited amount. Keeping in view our own order in HUDA and Ors. Darsh Kumar (Revision Petition No. 1197 of 1998) we direct that the OP, Bihar State Housing Board to refund Rs. 6,500/- along with interest @ 18% from the date of deposit till the date of payment, which must be done within six weeks of this order. Complaint is allowed only to the extent. Cost fixed at Rs. 5000/- to by payable by the Respondent, Housing Board to the Complainant.