National Consumer Disputes RedressalRajasthan Housing Board & Anr. vs Karuna Bohra on 7 August, 2013NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

 
 





 

 



 

NATIONAL
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION 

 

NEW DELHI 

 

   

 

 REVISION PETITION NO.  2284 OF 2013 

 

(From the order dated 01.04.2013 in First Appeal
No. 32/2013 

 

of Rajasthan State Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission) 

 

 WITH 

 

 I.A.
No. 3802 & 3803 /2013 

 

 (STAY,
EXEMPTION FOR FILING  

 

 TRANSLATION
OF DOCUMENTS)  

 

1. Rajasthan Housing Board, 

 

Jyoti
Nagar, Janpath, 

 

Bhagwan
Das Road, 

 

Jaipur 

 

Through its Secretary 

 

  

 

2. Rajasthan Housing Board, 

 

Through Deputy Housing
Commissioner 

 

Circle-First, Pratap Nagar, 

 

Sanganer,
Jaipur   ...
Petitioners 

 

  

 

Versus 

 

Gyan
Singh 

 

s/o Shri Sujan Singh, 

 

r/o
15, Chaudhory Colony, 

 

Kartarpura 

 

Jaipur      Respondent  

 

   

 

 REVISION PETITION NO.  2285 OF 2013 

 

(From the order dated 01.04.2013 in First Appeal
No. 33/2013 

 

of Rajasthan State Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission) 

 

 WITH 

 

 I.A.
No. 3804 & 3805 /2013 

 

 (STAY,
EXEMPTION FOR FILING  

 

 TRANSLATION
OF DOCUMENTS)  

 

1. Rajasthan Housing Board, 

 

Jyoti
Nagar, Janpath, 

 

Bhagwan
Das Road, 

 

Jaipur 

 

Through its Secretary 

 

  

 

2. Rajasthan Housing Board, 

 

Through Deputy Housing
Commissioner 

 

Circle-First, Pratap Nagar, 

 

Sanganer,
Jaipur ... Petitioners 

 

  

 

Versus 

 

Karuna Bohra 

 

w/o Ashwani Bohra, 

 

r/o
House No. 51/62,  

 

Pratap
Nagar, 

 

Sanganer,
Jaipur 
Respondent  

 

   

 

 BEFORE 

 

HONBLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI,  

 

PRESIDING MEMBER 

 

HONBLE DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER 

 

  

 

   

 

 APPEARED AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENTS  

 

  

 

(IN BOTH REVISION PETITIONS) 

 

  

 
   
   
   

For the Petitioner(s) 
  
   
   

  
  
   
   

Mr. Vinay K. Sharma, Advocate 
  
 
  
   
   

For the Respondent(s) 
  
   
   

  
  
   
   

Mr. Rakesh K. Mudgal, Advocate 
   

Mr. Gyan Singh, Advocate 
  
 


 

   

 

 PRONOUNCED
ON : 7th AUGUST 2013  

 O R D E RPER
DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER 

 

  

 

 These
two revision petitions have been filed undersection 21(b)of the Consumer
Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 01.04.2013 passed by the Rajasthan
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short the State Commission)
in FA No. 32/2013 Rajasthan Housing Board versus Gyan
Singh by which while dismissing the appeal, the order passed by District
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jaipur in complaint no. 787 and 664 of 2012 filed
by the respondents/complainants was upheld.
These two petitions are being disposed off by
this single order and a copy of the same may be placed on each file.2. Brief
facts of the case, as taken from complaint no. 787/2012 filed by Gyan Singh respondent in RP No. 2284/2013 are that the
Petitioner/OP launched a multi-storey housing scheme at Mewar
apartments, Haldighati Marg,
Pratap Nagar, Jaipur. The complainants submitted applications for
booking flats in the said Scheme by making payment of registration amount of
Rs.1,80,000/- each.The approximate cost of the flat was stated to be  

Rs.17,90,000/-.The complainants were successful in the draw of lots taken out on
14.04.2008. Allotment letters were
issued to them. The complainants deposited
the total amount of the flat in instalments as demanded by the
petitioner/OP. As per commitment made by
the Petitioner/OP through the reservation letter dated 22.10.2008, the
petitioners were required to issue a allotment
letter/possession letter of the flat within a period of 30 months from that
letter after allotting the house number.However, the said allotment/possession letter was issued to the
complainant on 30.6.2011 meaning thereby that there was a delay of about three
months in issuing the said letter.Further, the petitioners raised further demand of Rs.1,96,215/-
in RP No. 2284/2013 and a demand of Rs.1,98,784/- in RP No. 2285/2013 from the
complainants before taking the possession of the flats. The said amounts were also deposited by the
complainants under protest. Further, an
additional demand for Rs.97,225/- for parking in RP
No. 2284/2013 and that of Rs.57,495/- in RP No. 2285/2013 was also made by the
petitioner and the said amount was also paid by the complainants. It has been alleged by the complainants that
the petitioners/OP had not completed the construction work of the flats at the
time of offer of possession and hence, there was gross negligence and
deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner. A complaint was, therefore, made before the
District Forum and as per orders passed by the District Forum on 5.12.2012 in
both the cases, it was ordered that in case of complaint no. 787/2012 the
petitioner/OP should pay interest @ 15% p.a. on the amount of Rs.17,90,000/- from 30.03.2011 to 30.06.2011 and also to refund
the parking charges of Rs.97,225/- with interest @ 15% p.a. from the date of
receiving such payment till refund.District Forum also ordered that for failure of the petitioner to provide
all amenities, interest @ 10% p.a. should also be paid on the total amount of
Rs.17,90,000+Rs.1,96,215 = Rs.19,86,215/- and to pay Rs.50,000/- by way of
compensation for mental agony and Rs.3,000/- as litigation expenses.3. In
case of RP No. 2285/2013, it was ordered that the petitioner should pay
interest @ 9% p.a. on the total amount of Rs.21,40,000/- from 30.03.2011 to
30.06.2011 and to refund the parking charges of Rs.57,495/- along with interest
@ 12% from the date of receiving the amount till refund. It was also ordered that 10% interest should
be paid for not providing all amenities on the amount Rs.21,40,000/-+Rs.1,98,784/-=Rs.23,38,784/-
and to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental
agony and Rs.3,000/- for litigation expenses.
Against these orders dated 5.12.2012 passed by the District Forum,
appeals were filed before the State Commission.
The State Commission upheld the orders of the District Forum vide order
dated 1.4.2013. It is against this order
that the present petitions have been filed.4. Heard
the learned counsel for the parties and examined the record.5. It
has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the District
Forum has not given any reasons for the grant of interest on the deposited
amount under various heads. They have simply
stated that interest @ 10%
should be given on the entire amount charged by the petitioner
till all the amenities are provided. The
order is, therefore, quite vague and there has to be a proper rational basis
for charging the interest. The order
passed by the State Commission was quite vague/sketchy
and no reasons have been given by them for upholding the orders of the District
Forum. The petitioners had already
allowed interest @ 6% p.a. on the deposited amount on the period beyond
30.3.2011 till the offer of possession.6. Learned
counsel for the complainants / respondents stated that the petitioner had not
been able to provide proper amenities on the spot and this factor amounted to
deficiency in service and hence, they were required to compensate the complainants
for the same.7. We
have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful
consideration to the arguments advanced before us. An examination of the order passed by the
District Forum in Gyan Singhs complaint, in Revision
Petition No. 2284/2013, reveals that the District Forum ordered to pay interest
@15% p.a. on the total cost of the flat, whereas in Revision Petition No.
2285/2013 (Karuna Bohras
complaint), District Forum ordered to pay interest @ 9% on the cost of the
flat, i.e., Rs.21,40,000/- and interest @ 12% p.a. on the parking amount of
Rs.57,495/. Further, they have ordered in both the cases that interest @ 10%
p.a. should be paid by the petitioner on the deposited amount, till all the
amenities are provided. It is very clear
that the complainants shall be entitled for the said interest, even if a very
minor facility is not provided and this will result in unnecessary litigation
between the parties. The District Forum
should have adopted a more rational approach and given cogent reasons for
awarding the interest and should have laid down some specific time-table for
completion of the amenities, if they felt that certain facilities had not been
provided. Further, it is observed that
in Gyan Singh case, the District Forum stated in para 18 of their order that the complainant is entitled to
get back the amount of Rs.97,225/- charged for parking
space along with an interest @12% p.a. However, while passing the order, they
directed that an interest @ 15% p.a. should be paid on this amount, which is an
apparent contradiction.8. Further,
it was the duty of the State Commission to examine all aspects of the case
minutely and then give specific reasons for agreeing or disagreeing with the
findings of the District Forum. The
order passed by the State Commission is vague and does not give, at all, any
reasons for agreeing with the orders of the District Forum. The contention of the State Commission that
there is no need to re-analyse all the facts and evidence, is contrary to the
provisions of law. The Honble Apex court have also taken a similar view in many
cases that it is the duty of the appellate court to give reasons for agreeing
or disagreeing with this order.Reference may be made in this regard to the case HVPNL versus Mahavir [(2001) 10 SCC 659]8. Based
on this discussion, we are inclined to accept these two revision
petitions. The order passed by the State
Commission is set aside and the cases are remanded back to the State Commission
with the direction to analyse all aspects of the cases and then pass a detailed
speaking order giving reasons for their conclusion. No order as to costs.Sd/-(K.S. CHAUDHARI J.) 

 PRESIDING MEMBER

 

  

 

  

 

Sd/-(DR. B.C. GUPTA) 

 MEMBER

 

RS/