RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD Vs. KHUSHAL MEGHWAL
LAWS(NCD)-2020-1-95
NCDRC
Decided on January 27,2020

RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD Appellant
VERSUS
Khushal Meghwal Respondents

JUDGEMENT

V.K.JAIN,J. - (1.) These are applications seeking impleadment of the legal representatives of the deceased respondent namely Champalal Pareek. The Learned Counsel appearing for the proposed legal representatives of the deceased respondent/complainant submits that the deceased was survived by his widow, one son and one daughter. He further submits that one son of the deceased had expired in his life-time and the pre-deceased son of the deceased respondent is survived by three class-I legal heirs, namely Smt. Jamna Devi, Sh. Abhishek and Sh. Bharat. Hence, Smt. Bhagwati Devi(widow of deceased respondent), Smt. Jamna Devi (widow of pre-deceased son of deceased respondent) , Sh. Abhishek, Sh. Bharat, (sons of pre-deceased son of deceased respondent) Sh. Ajay Pareek (son of deceased respondent) and Smt. Indu Bala (daughter of deceased respondent) are brought on record as the legal representatives of the deceased respondent. The amended memo. Of parties filed by the proposed legal representatives of the deceased is taken on record. The applications stand disposed of. RPs 21, 22, 23, 24 & 25 of 2017. The petitioner Rajasthan Housing Board advertised a scheme namely Self-Financing Scheme, 2010, for allotment of residential flats in Sector 14 of Chopasini Residential Scheme of Jodhpur. The said flats were to be known as Marwar Apartments. It was stated in the Brochure issued by the petitioner, that the area of the Residential Scheme, namely Marwar Apartments was about 22 hectares and 144 apartments were proposed to be constructed under the afore-said Scheme. The Complainants, in these matters, got themselves registered under the above-referred Scheme advertised by the petitioner Board. Reservation letters were issued to them in the year 2012, wherein it was inter alia stated that the estimated cost of the apartment would be Rs.17,99,000/-. The payment was to be made in instalments and the last instalment was to be computed as per the finally decided cost of the apartments. The complainants made further payment, pursuant to the reservation letters issued to them by the petitioner Board. Thereafter, allotment letters were issued to them wherein the cost of the apartments was stated to be Rs. 24,80,8000/- Other charges comprising ancillary service charges, lease money, interest on seed money for delayed period wherever applicable, cost of parking and cost of maps were also added to the cost of the apartment. Instead of making further payment in terms of the allotment letters issued to them the complainants approached the concerned District Forum by way of separate consumer complaints, seeking possession of the allotted flats at the cost of Rs. 15,39,836/-. They also disputed the demand of ancillary service charges, parking charges and service tax. The maintenance charges demanded by the petitioner board were also disputed by them. They also sought compensation for the mental agony and harassment which they had to undergo, besides seeking interest on the registration money from the date of deposit till the date of reservation.
(2.) The Complaints were resisted by the petitioner Board which inter alia stated in its written version that it proposed to construct 144 multi-storied flats in phase-I under Marwar Apartment Housing Project, for which registrations were made in the years 2008, 2009 and 2010. The construction commenced in October, 2009 and was completed in March, 2013. It was also stated in the Written Version that the cost given in the reservation letter was only an estimated cost and the allotment was made on no-profit-no-loss basis, the final cost having been calculated after the construction work had finished. The other charges demanded in the allotment letter were also sought to be justified by the petitioner Board.
(3.) The District Forum having dismissed the Consumer Complaint, the complainants/respondents approached the concerned State Commission by way of separate appeals. The State Commission having allowed the appeals and having directed refund of the amount which the complainants had deposited with the petitioner Board, along with interest @ 9% p.a., the petitioner Board is before this Commission, by way of these Revision Petitions.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.