National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commissioner, Rahasthan Housing Board ... vs Madan Singh on 28 July, 2015
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 2734 OF 2010 (Against the Order dated 16/04/2010 in Appeal No. 1569/2007 of the State Commission Rajasthan) 1. COMMISSIONER, RAHASTHAN HOUSING BOARD & ORS. Jyoti Nagar Jaipur Rajasthan 2. DEPUTY HOUSING COMMISSIONER Rajasthan Hosing Board, Circle Jhunjhunu Jhunjhunu Rajasthan 3. RESIDENT ENGINEER, RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD Circle Jhunjhunu Jhunjhunu Rajasthan ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. MADAN SINGH R/o. Village Blas Ghasiram, Via Alsisar, Tehsil and District Jhunjhunu Jhunjhunu Rajasthan ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. Vivek Jain, Advocate For the Respondent : Appearance not marked Dated : 28 Jul 2015 ORDER HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)
1. The complainant/respondent booked an LIG house with the petitioner Board and a house in the aforesaid category was reserved for him vide letter dated 28.08.1993. Vide allotment letter dated 20.12.1995, the petitioner allotted an LIG flat to the complainant/respondent at a total price of Rs. 102054/- and asked him to deposit a sum of Rs. 32844/- and take possession on or before 14.02.1995. The balance amount was required to be deposited in installments. The aforesaid allotment letter is alleged to have been sent to the complainant by registered post, though the case of the complainant is that the said allotment letter was never received by him. According to the petitioner Board, since payment in terms of the allotment letter dated 20.12.1995 was not made by the complainant, a reminder letter dated 16.12.2001 was sent to him followed by a final notice dated 05.10.2001. The said final notice dated 05.10.2001 is alleged to have been sent by registered post on the same date. Since no payment was made to the Board even after the said notice dated 05.10.2001, yet another reminder letter dated 23.10.2001 was sent to the complainant by registered post. No payment having been made even after the reminder letter dated 23.10.2001, the allotment was cancelled vide cancellation letter dated 04.01.2002 which is also stated to have sent to the complainant by registered post. The case of the complainant of course is that none of the aforesaid notices were ever received by him.
2. The complainant sent a legal notice to the petitioner Board dated 05.01.2006 claiming that no allotment had been made to him. The said notice was replied by the Board vide its reply dated 15.02.2006. Since no allotment was made to him even after the notice served by him, the complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a complaint seeking the following reliefs:
(a) To direct the respondents to prove the house to the complainant in the Jhunjhunu 1995 Scheme on hire purchase mode. If any amount is due and payable by the complainant in this regard, then the complainant is ready and willing to deposit the same;
(b) If the respondents are unable to prove the house to the complainant under economically weaker section/scheduled caste category, then direct the respondents to pay an amount of Rs. 26806.30/- towards refund of his deposited amount of Rs. 15850/- alongwith interest @ 16.5% per annum thereon and
(c) To direct the respondents to pay an amount of Rs. 4,000/- towards mental agony and Rs. 1500/- towards cost of the litigation to the complainant.
3. The complaint was resisted by the petitioners on the ground that the complainant having not made payment in terms of the allotment letter, the allotment was cancelled. This is also the case of the petitioner Board that the amount which the complainant had deposited earlier with them was refunded to him on 18.10.2006.
4. The first issue which arises for consideration in this case is whether the demand-cum-allotment letter dated 20.12.1995 and/or the subsequent reminders were served upon the complainant or not. Though the postal receipt whereby the demand-cum-allotment letter dated 20.12.1995 is alleged to have sent to the complainant has not been placed on record, the learned counsel for the petitioner maintains that the said notice was actually sent by registered post. However, since no postal receipt has been produced before us, we proceed on the assumption that there is no proof of the service of the demand-cum-allotment letter dated 20.12.1995 and the notice dated 16.09.2001. The petitioner, however, has filed not only before the Fora below, but also before us the postal receipt whereby the final notice dated 05.10.2001 was sent to the complainant. The said notice as well as the postal receipt bear the correct address of the complainant. Therefore, there is a statutory presumption under section 27 of General Clauses Act and section 114(e) of the Evidence Act that the said final notice dated 05.10.2001 was duly served upon the complainant in due course. Notice dated 05.10.2001 contains a reference to allotment letter no. 809 dated 20.12.1995. Therefore, on receipt of the said notice, the complainant could easily have contacted the petitioner Board, obtained a copy of the allotment letter dated 20.12.1995 in case the said allotment letter was not already received by him and then made the requisite payment.
5. The petitioner Board had filed before the Fora below and also filed before us a copy of the postal receipt whereby the reminder letter dated 23.10.2001 was sent to the complainant. This notice also contains a reference to the allotment letter dated 20.12.1995 and requires the complainant to take physical possession of the house by 15.11.2001. It also contains a warning that if possession is not taken by that date, the allotment would be cancelled and steps would be taken to allot the house to another applicant. The said reminder letter having been sent by registered post, there is a statutory presumption to its service on the complainant since it was sent at his correct address. Even after receipt of this reminder letter, the complainant did not bother to make payment to the petitioner Board or to obtain copy of the allotment letter dated 20.12.1995 in case the same was already not received by him.
6. The petitioner has also placed before us a photocopy of the postal receipt whereby the cancellation letter dated 04.01.2002 was sent to the complainant. This document was also filed before the Fora below and the aforesaid cancellation letter dated 04.01.2002 has been dispatched to the complainant at his correct address. Therefore, there is a statutory presumption of service of the cancellation letter on the complainant. Even thereafter, the complainant made no grievance with respect to non-receipt of the allotment cum demand letter.
7. In our view, the Fora below were not justified in rejecting the service of the aforesaid letters/notices merely on the basis of the bald statement of the complainant in this regard. It is quite unlikely that as many as three letters/notices, all, sent by registered post at the correct address of the complainant would not be delivered to him. Therefore, in our view, the statutory presumption under section 27 of General Clauses Act and section 114(e) of the Evidence Act did not stand duly rebutted in this case. Having not made payment of the balance amount in terms of the allotment letter dated 20.12.1995 to the petitioner Board, the complainant has only himself to blame for being deprived of the allotment of the residential flat which the said Board had reserved for him. In our view, in the facts and circumstances of the case, no deficiency on the part of the petitioner in rendering services to the complainant is made out. Therefore, no justification is shown as either for directing allotment of flat or for payment of compensation to the complainant.
8. We, however, find that though the allotment made to the complainant came to be cancelled on 04.01.2002, the amount deposited by him was refunded only on 18.10.2006. The said amount, in our view, ought to have been refunded to the complainant immediately after cancellation of the allotment and without waiting for the fourth copy of the challan from him. The very fact that the petitioner paid the aforesaid amount to the complainant, after filing of the consumer complaint, clearly shows that the payment could have been made earlier, as soon as the allotment was cancelled. We, therefore, direct the petitioner Board to pay interest to the complainant @ 10% per annum on the amount of refund, for the period from 04.01.2002 to 15.02.2006. The orders passed by the Fora below are modified and the revision petition stands disposed of accordingly.
......................J V.K. JAIN PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... DR. B.C. GUPTA MEMBER