State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Keshar Dev vs Residential Engineer Of Rajasthan ... on 25 May, 2026
BEFORE THE RAJASTHAN STATE CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CIRCUIT
BENCH AT BIKANER
FIRST APPEAL NO: 184/2023
1. Sh. Keshardev
S/o Sh. Bhawani Shankar, Caste-Brahmin, Address-
Raja Khoti, Quarter no.7, Hanumangarh Town,
Distt. Hanumangarh.
...Appellant
-VERSUS-
1. Residential Engineer
Rajasthan Housing Board, Section- Hanumangarh,
Plot no.-9/58-59, Hanumangarh Junction, Dist.
Hanumangarh
2. Chairman
Rajasthan Housing Board, Jaipur.
...Respondents
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. A.K. AGARWAL - MEMBER (J.)
HON'BLE MR. R.N. SARSWAT - MEMBER (J.)
Present:
For Appellants: Ms. Priyam Khajanchi, Advocate
For Respondent: Mr. Manoj Bansal, Advocate
Dated: 25.05.2026
FA/184/2023
Keshardev Vs. Residential Engineer, RHB & Anr.
Judgment
Authored by: Hon'ble Mr. R. N. Sarswat - Member
The present appeal has been preferred by Mr. Keshardev (hereinafter referred to as the Complainant/Appellant) against the order dated 04.07.2023 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hanumangarh (hereinafter referred to as the DCDRC) in Consumer Complaint No. CC/297/2018, whereby the DCDRC dismissed the consumer complaint filed by the Complainant.
Complaint's version The Complainant submitted that a residential plot under the MIG category was allotted to him by the Rajasthan Housing Board (hereinafter referred to as the "Respondents") under the New Residential Scheme situated near the DTO Office, Hanumangarh, through a draw of lots.
It is averred that the physical possession of the said plot was handed over to the complainant on 14.08.2015, and upon deposit of the requisite consideration amount, a registered sale deed/conveyance deed dated 06.04.2017 was executed in favor of the Appellant and possession of the allotted property was handed over. It is further stated that the Appellant had also availed a housing loan from a bank in respect of the said property.
The Complainant further submitted that the Respondents had represented and assured that all essential and basic civic amenities, including electricity and water supply, would be made available in the residential scheme. However, despite the execution of the conveyance deed and delivery of possession, Page 2 of 12 FA/184/2023 Keshardev Vs. Residential Engineer, RHB & Anr. the said amenities were allegedly not provided till the filing of the consumer complaint.
It has further been pleaded that despite repeated approaches and service of a legal notice dated 24.04.2018, the Respondents failed to redress the grievance of the Appellant. Owing to the non-availability of basic amenities, the Appellant was constrained to continue residing in rented accommodation and incur rental expenses despite owning the allotted house. The aforesaid acts and omissions of the Respondents have been alleged to constitute "deficiency in service" and "unfair trade practice" within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act. Proceedings before the DCDRC Aggrieved thereby, the Complainant filed a Consumer Complaint No. CC/297/2018 on 06.08.2018, before the DCDRC, Hanumangarh, seeking the following reliefs: -
1. To direct the respondents to provide basic amenities, including water and electricity supply;
2. To compensate/reimburse the Complainant for rent and interest paid on the housing loan amounting to Rs. 6,12,500/-;
3. To pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the Complainant for mental agony and physical harassment;
4. To pay a sum of Rs. 5,100/- to the Complainant for litigation expenses;
5. Any other relief deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
In support of his case, the Complainant submitted several documents including the copies of conveyance deed, perpetual lease, building plan, no dues certificate, lease release certificate, physical possession letter, handing over letter, allotment letter, Page 3 of 12 FA/184/2023 Keshardev Vs. Residential Engineer, RHB & Anr. letter by the complainant to the Rajasthan Housing Board, legal notice, letter by the AEN, PHED, a letter by the AEN, Jodhpur Discom to the Complainant etc. The Complainant also tendered his evidence by way of affidavit.
In response to the aforesaid complaint, the respondents filed a detailed written statement. They contended that water supply had already been provided in the year 2014 and electricity supply in the year 2015. It was further contended that other allottees were residing in the scheme after availing such facilities and that no deficiency in service could be attributed to the Respondents. The above fact had already been endorsed in the handover certificate.
Thereafter, the respondents further pleaded that the complaint was frivolous and liable to be dismissed. In support of their defense, reliance was placed upon certificates issued by the Residential Engineer, Rajasthan Housing Board, along with certain photographs of the site. An affidavit of Mr. Hira Lal Rokana, Project Engineer (Senior), Rajasthan Housing Board, Hanumangarh, was also tendered. However, no evidence affidavit was produced to substantiate the said contentions. Order of the DCDRC After hearing the arguments advanced by the parties and perusing the material available on record, the DCDRC dismissed the complaint vide order dated 04.07.2023, holding that the Complainant had failed to establish any deficiency in service on the part of the respondents by adducing cogent and reliable evidence.
Page 4 of 12
FA/184/2023 Keshardev Vs. Residential Engineer, RHB & Anr. The DCDRC further observed that the burden of proving deficiency in service squarely lay upon the Complainant and that the said burden had not been satisfactorily discharged. Appeal Dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 04.07.2023, the Complainant/Appellant preferred this appeal bearing No. A/184/2023 on 11.10.2023, on, inter alia, the following grounds:
1. That the learned DCDRC failed to properly appreciate the documentary evidence placed on record;
2. That undue reliance was placed upon the letter dated 14.08.2015 without examining the actual availability of amenities in the scheme;
3. That the communications dated 22.11.2022 and 01.12.2022 issued by PHED and Jodhpur Discom, respectively, clearly indicate that water and electricity facilities were not available in the scheme prior to the year 2018;
4. That the photographs relied upon by the Respondents did not conclusively establish the existence of a regular and functional water supply;
5. That the burden of proof was incorrectly placed entirely upon the Appellant; and
6. That sufficient cause existed for condonation of the delay in filing the appeal.
An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of the delay of 55 days has also been filed. Points for determination In light of the pleadings, material available on record, and submissions advanced by the parties, the following points arise for determination in the present appeal: - Page 5 of 12
FA/184/2023 Keshardev Vs. Residential Engineer, RHB & Anr.
1. Whether Respondents failed to provide essential civic amenities, including electricity and water supply, in the residential scheme allotted to the Complainant/Appellant?
2. Whether the learned DCDRC erred in dismissing the consumer complaint by improperly appreciating the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, such as the letter dated 22.11.2022, 01.12.2012, and 04.08.2015?
3. Whether the DCDRC erred in putting the burden of proof on the complainant?
4. Whether such alleged non-provision of basic amenities amounts to ―deficiency in service‖ and/or ―unfair trade practice‖ on the part of the Respondents within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act?
5. Whether the Appellant/Complainant is entitled to compensation towards rent, housing loan interest, mental agony, litigation expenses, or any other relief as claimed in the complaint?
6. Whether sufficient cause has been shown by the Appellant for condonation of the delay in filing the present appeal?
Findings After hearing the arguments pressed by the learned counsels of both parties and after careful perusal of the pleadings and the other material available on record. The findings of this commission on the points for determination are as follows: -
I. Findings on Point Nos. 1 and 2
Page 6 of 12
FA/184/2023
Keshardev Vs. Residential Engineer, RHB & Anr. This Commission has carefully considered the material available on record, including the letters dated 14.08.2015, 22.11.2022, and 01.12.2022.
The letter dated 14.08.2015 primarily pertains to the handing over of possession of the allotted premises. The said communication does not conclusively establish that regular and functional electricity and water supply facilities were available throughout the residential scheme at the relevant time.
The Respondents have relied upon a certificate dated 30.04.2019 issued by the Residential Engineer stating that water supply work was completed on 25.06.2014. For the Respondents, Mr. K.L. Ninamia, Residential Engineer, Rajasthan Housing Board, Hanumangarh has also asserted through the affidavit that electricity and water supply had been made available prior to the year 2015.
However, the aforesaid stand appears inconsistent with the communication dated 22.11.2022 issued by the Assistant Engineer, PHED, Sub-Division Hanumangarh, wherein it has been stated that water connection could not be provided to the Appellant because no water pipeline existed in the concerned residential scheme.
Similarly, the communication dated 01.12.2022 issued by the Assistant Engineer, Jodhpur Discom, Hanumangarh Junction, prima facie raises doubt as to whether electrification was fully operational prior to the year 2018.
The aforesaid documents give rise to material contradictions regarding the actual availability and functionality Page 7 of 12 FA/184/2023 Keshardev Vs. Residential Engineer, RHB & Anr. of electricity and water supply in the residential scheme during the relevant period.
In the absence of any independent inspection report, technical verification report, or other conclusive evidence regarding the actual factual position, this Commission is of the considered view that no final finding can presently be recorded regarding the existence and functionality of the said amenities. Accordingly, a detailed factual enquiry by competent authorities is necessary for proper adjudication of the controversy involved in the present matter. II. Findings on Point No. 3
The learned DCDRC placed the burden entirely upon the Appellant to establish the non-availability of electricity and water supply.
In terms of Sections 101 to 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, once prima facie material raising doubt was produced by the Appellant, the evidentiary burden shifted upon the Respondents, who were in possession of special knowledge regarding the development works undertaken in the scheme.
In the present case, the Appellant produced official communications issued by PHED and Jodhpur Discom raising substantial doubt regarding the availability of water and electricity supply in the residential scheme prior to the year 2018.
In such circumstances, the burden shifted upon the Respondents to establish through cogent, reliable, and convincing evidence that such amenities were in fact available and functional at the relevant time.
Page 8 of 12
FA/184/2023 Keshardev Vs. Residential Engineer, RHB & Anr. Except for affidavit evidence and certain certificates, no comprehensive technical report, inspection report, completion certificate, or independent documentary evidence has been placed on record by the Respondents to conclusively establish the existence and functionality of the said amenities.
Accordingly, this Commission is of the considered opinion that the learned DCDRC erred in placing the entire burden upon the Appellant.
III. Findings on Point Nos. 4 and 5 The issue of whether non-provision of basic civic amenities amounts to a deficiency in service necessarily depends upon the actual factual position regarding the existence and functionality of electricity and water supply in the residential scheme.
Since serious contradictions exist in the material available on record, this issue cannot be conclusively adjudicated without proper factual verification by competent authorities.
Accordingly, this Commission considers it appropriate to direct the constitution of an independent enquiry committee comprising officers from the concerned departments for conducting spot inspection and submitting a comprehensive report regarding the availability and functionality of basic amenities in the residential scheme.
IV. Findings on Point No. 6
The Appellant has satisfactorily explained the delay in filing the present appeal by stating that the impugned order was Page 9 of 12 FA/184/2023 Keshardev Vs. Residential Engineer, RHB & Anr. not communicated to him until 17.09.2023. This Commission finds the explanation to be reasonable and sufficient.
Accordingly, in the interest of substantial justice, the delay in filing the present appeal deserves to be condoned. Conclusion In view of the foregoing discussion and findings recorded hereinabove, this Commission finds that material contradictions exist regarding the actual availability and functionality of electricity and water supply in the residential scheme in question.
The communications dated 22.11.2022 and 01.12.2022 prima facie cast doubt upon the stand taken by the Respondents that the requisite amenities had already been provided prior to the year 2015.
This Commission is of the considered view that the controversy involved in the present appeal cannot be effectively adjudicated without an independent factual enquiry by competent technical authorities.
Accordingly, without expressing any final opinion on the merits of the rival claims of the parties, in exercise of powers vested under Section 38(9) read with Section 39 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, and for the purpose of effective adjudication of the dispute, this Commission considers it appropriate to obtain an independent factual verification through competent technical authorities regarding the existence and functionality of basic civic amenities in the residential scheme.
ORDER Page 10 of 12 FA/184/2023 Keshardev Vs. Residential Engineer, RHB & Anr. Consequently, the appeal shall remain pending for consideration after receipt of the enquiry report.
The Registrar, Circuit Bench, Bikaner, is directed to communicate a copy of this order to the District Collector, Hanumangarh, for the constitution of an Enquiry Committee comprising the following members:
1. Additional District Magistrate, Hanumangarh --
Chairperson;
2. Superintendent Engineer, PHED, Hanumangarh Division;
3. Superintendent Engineer, Jodhpur Discom, Hanumangarh Division; and
4. Superintendent Engineer, Rajasthan Housing Board, Hanumangarh Division.
The aforesaid Committee shall conduct a detailed enquiry and submit a comprehensive report regarding:
1. The authenticity and evidentiary value of the letters dated 14.08.2015, 22.11.2022, and 01.12.2022;
2. The actual existence, availability, and functionality of electricity and water supply in the residential scheme, supported by photographs and inspection records;
3. The date from which such amenities became operational, if available;
4. In the event amenities were not available, the reasons therefor and the feasibility of providing the same; and
5. Any other aspect considered necessary for the effective adjudication of the dispute.
The Committee shall be at liberty to conduct spot inspections and obtain records or information from the concerned departments as may be necessary.
The report of the Committee shall be submitted before this Commission on or before 23.06.2026. Page 11 of 12
FA/184/2023 Keshardev Vs. Residential Engineer, RHB & Anr. List the matter thereafter for further proceedings.
(Arun Kumar Agarwal) (RamNiwas Sarswat)
Member (J.) Member (J.)
Page 12 of 12