- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Rajasthan Housing Board v. Gyan Singh
Structured Summary of the Opinion: Rajasthan Housing Board Vs. Gyan Singh (Revision Petition)
Factual and Procedural Background
The revision petition arises from an order dated 23.9.2014 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (Bench No.1, Jaipur) in Appeal No. 32/2013 (Rajasthan Housing Board Vs. Gyan Singh) that dismissed the Board's appeal and upheld the District Forum's order allowing the complaint.
Brief factual matrix (as stated in the opinion): The complainant (respondent before this Court) submitted an application with a draft of Rs.1,80,000/- to the Rajasthan Housing Board (petitioner) for allotment of a flat in Mewar Apartment, Jaipur, whose approximate cost was Rs.17,90,000/-. The complainant was declared successful in the draw, received an allotment letter dated 22.10.2008, and deposited the total amount of Rs.17,90,000/- including interest for delayed payment.
Possession was contractually to be given within 30 months, but construction was delayed. Possession was given on 30.6.2011 (the contract date for possession being 22.4.2011), creating a delay of 2 months and 8 days. At possession, the Board demanded Rs.1,96,215/-, which the complainant deposited under protest, and also charged an additional Rs.97,225/- for parking (alleged by the complainant to be already included in construction cost).
The complainant alleged deficiency in service and filed a complaint in the District Forum. The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed: interest @ 15% p.a. on Rs.17,90,000/- from 30.3.2011 to 30.6.2011; refund of Rs.97,225/- with 15% p.a. interest; interest @ 10% p.a. on Rs.19,86,215/- from 30.6.2011 until providing all facilities; compensation of Rs.50,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.3,000/-.
The Board appealed to the State Commission which dismissed the appeal. The Board filed revision before this Commission. This Commission remanded the matter twice (orders dated 7.8.2013 and 26.5.2014) back to the State Commission; the State Commission again dismissed the appeal on 16.9.2013 and later by the impugned order dated 23.9.2014 (after remands). The present revision petition challenges the impugned order dated 23.9.2014.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the District Forum's award of interest at 15% p.a. on the deposited amount for the period of delayed delivery of possession (and the State Commission's upholding of that award) was legally sustainable, given the parties' agreement and the application booklet providing 6% p.a. interest.
- Whether the Rs.97,225/- charged for parking was rightly refundable, considering the Principles of Costing-2010 and the contents of the allotment booklet and RTI responses.
- Whether the District Forum's direction to pay interest @ 10% p.a. on Rs.19,86,215/- until all amenities were provided and its award of compensation (including Rs.50,000/- for mental agony) were appropriate in light of which facilities had or had not been provided and the applicable legal principles for compensation.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner's (Rajasthan Housing Board) Arguments
- There was no liability to pay interest @ 15% p.a. for the delayed delivery of possession; interest of 6% p.a. had already been paid as per the booklet's terms.
- Charges for parking (Rs.97,225/-) were correctly imposed in accordance with the Principles of Costing-2010 (applicable from 1.6.2010), which prescribe 5% of the flat cost for stilt parking.
- Most of the facilities had been provided at the time of handing over possession and some subsequently; thus the District Forum erred in allowing the complaint and the State Commission erred in upholding that finding.
Respondent's (Complainant's) Arguments
- Facilities mentioned in the brochure/booklet had not been provided even after possession was granted; therefore the reliefs granted by the District Forum were justified.
- Parking cost was included in the construction cost (as per RTI information), so separate charges for parking were not justified.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| (2007) 6 SCC 711 - Bangalore Development Authority Vs. Syndicate Bank | Compensation may be granted where a developing authority's negligence, shortcoming or inadequacy in performance causes avoidable harassment and mental agony to the allottee. | The Court relied on this principle to justify awarding compensation to the complainant for non-provision of promised facilities and mental agony; it formed part of the reasoning for awarding Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation. |
| IV (2004) CPJ 589 (NC) - Emaar MGF Land Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Krishan Chander Chandna | Awarding damages (example given: Rs.5,00,000/-) where builders received full consideration but failed to deliver possession. | The court observed this citation is not applicable here because possession had in fact been delivered after 2 months 8 days and interest was paid as agreed; thus the higher damages in Emaar MGF were inapplicable. |
| I (1999) CPJ 18 (NC) - George Thomas & Ors. Vs. Ghaziabad Development Authority & Ors. | Refund with 18% p.a. interest where possession was not given as per scheme and scheme was given up. | The Court held this precedent did not apply because in the present case possession had been handed over after a short delay (2 months 8 days) rather than the scheme being abandoned. |
| IV (2007) CPJ 79 (NC) - Anoop K. Joshi Vs. Ansal Properties & Industries Ltd. | On account of failure in providing lift up to the 6th floor, the complainant was held not liable to pay interest for delayed deposit — illustrating adjustments where promised facilities are not provided. | The Court noted that while Anoop K. Joshi involved non-provision of a specific facility (lift) and relief on interest, here the Board had not provided some projected facilities and thus was entitled to some compensation; the precedent informed the Court's understanding of compensatory relief for missing facilities. |
| III (2000) CPJ 8 (SC) - Haryana Urban Development Authority Vs. Rajnish Chander Sharde | Upheld award of 18% interest till delivery of possession in appropriate circumstances. | The Court noted this precedent was of no assistance to the complainant because, in the present case, interest had already been paid by the Board as per the agreement (6% for the relevant period). |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court proceeded stepwise through the main contested issues, applying contractual terms, scheme-specific costing principles, factual findings from RTI documents and prior case law where instructive:
- Interest on delayed possession: The contractual allotment booklet provided for interest at 6% p.a. for delayed delivery. Possession was delayed by 2 months and 8 days (possession due 22.4.2011, delivered 30.6.2011). The District Forum had awarded interest at 15% p.a. for a period mentioned as three months; the Court found two errors: (a) the complainant was not entitled to 15% p.a. when the parties had agreed to 6% p.a., and (b) the District Forum allowed interest for three months whereas the actual delay was 2 months 8 days. Consequently, the District Forum erred in awarding 15% p.a., and the State Commission erred in upholding that award.
- Parking charges (Rs.97,225/-): The Board argued the Principles of Costing-2010 (effective 1.6.2010) applied to the allotment (possession on 30.6.2011), which prescribe charging 5% of the flat cost for stilt parking (clause 12.5). The complainant relied on RTI material suggesting parking costs were included in construction cost. The Court analyzed the booklet and the Principles of Costing-2010 and concluded that the booklet did not promise free parking; the Principles provided differentiated charges for different parking types. The Court held the RTI reply (stating certain common areas are included in structure and finishing) was insufficient to establish that separate parking charges could not be levied. Thus the District Forum erred in ordering refund of parking charges and the State Commission erred in upholding that refund.
- Refund demanded by allotment letter (Rs.1,96,215/-): The District Forum held this demand was not unreasonable and refused refund; no appeal was taken against that refusal and it had attained finality. The Court confirmed finality of that aspect.
- Compensation and interest for non-provision of facilities: The District Forum had directed interest @ 10% p.a. on Rs.19,86,215/- from 30.6.2011 until all amenities were provided and awarded Rs.50,000/- for mental agony. The Board argued most facilities had been provided; the complainant relied on RTI records (from 9.9.2011 to 11.2.2015) showing works in progress — electricity initially via temporary connection, GSS completed (operational from 31.10.2012), and roads/street lights delayed. The Court accepted that several promised facilities (shopping centre, commercial facilities, landscaping, jogging track) remained incomplete even four years after possession; given the obligation to provide facilities promised in the scheme, the Court held compensation was appropriate.
- Quantum and nature of relief: Drawing on authoritative principle in Bangalore Development Authority v. Syndicate Bank that compensation is appropriate for avoidable harassment and mental agony, and distinguishing other cited cases (where possession was not delivered or schemes were abandoned), the Court concluded that monetary compensation — but not the District Forum's direction to award continuing interest @ 10% p.a. on deposited amounts — was the appropriate remedy. The Court considered precedent cited by both parties and found many were inapplicable because possession had in fact been delivered and/or contractual interest had been paid.
- Resulting modification: The Court deemed it appropriate to allow a consolidated compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (in place of the District Forum's interest direction and the Rs.50,000/- mental agony component) and set aside other directions ordering refund of parking charges and various interest awards; it retained the District Forum's award of litigation cost of Rs.3,000/-. The Court ordered payment within 30 days, with 12% p.a. interest on that amount after the deadline, and directed parties to bear their own costs.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The revision petition is PARTLY ALLOWED. The impugned order dated 23.9.2014 of the State Commission (in Appeal No.32 of 2013) and the District Forum's order dated 5.12.2012 (Complaint No.787 of 2012) are partly modified.
Core directives and immediate effects on the parties (as ordered by the Court):
- The Rajasthan Housing Board (petitioner/OP) is directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant (Gyan Singh) as compensation within 30 days.
- Failure to pay within 30 days will attract interest at 12% p.a. until payment.
- The cost of Rs.3,000/- awarded by the District Forum remains; parties to bear their own costs otherwise.
- All other directions of the District Forum regarding refund of Rs.97,225/- (parking charges) and other differing interest awards are set aside.
Implications beyond the parties: The opinion does not announce a novel legal principle or broad new precedent. It applies existing contractual principles, scheme-specific costing rules (Principles of Costing-2010), RTI-sourced factual records, and established precedents on compensation to the particular facts; the decision's consequences are primarily the modification of reliefs between the parties in this dispute.
PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 23.9.2014 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bench No. 1, Jaipur (in short, the State Commission) in Appeal No. 32/2013 Rajasthan Housing Board Vs. Gyan Singh by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was upheld.
2. Brief facts of the case are that Complainant/respondent submitted application along with draft of Rs.1,80,000/- with OP/petitioner for allotment of flat in higher income group, 2 nd category in Mewar Apartment, Haldi Ghati Marg, Pratap Nagar, Jaipur scheme. Approximate cost of the flat was Rs.17,90,000/-. In the draw, complainant was declared successful and OP issued allotment letter dated 22.10.2008 and in pursuance to allotment letter, complainant deposited total amount of Rs.17,90,000/- including interest on delayed payment. As per allotment letter, possession was to be given within a period of 30 months, but construction was not completed in 30 months. It was further submitted that possession letter was given to complainant on 30.6.2011 and by that letter OP demanded Rs. 1,96,215/- which was also deposited under protest, though, at the time of issuing letter, OP had not carried out work of electricity, road, park, parking, etc. It was further submitted that OP also demanded additional charge of Rs.97,225/- for parking, though, it was included in the construction cost of flat. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District forum. OP resisted complaint and admitted issuance of allotment letter, possession letter and depositing amount by complainant. It was further submitted that delay of 2 months and 8 days was unavoidable, but as per terms of the booklet 6% interest has already been paid to the complainant. It was further submitted that in application booklet only estimated cost of flat has been mentioned and it was further mentioned that final cost of flat shall be ascertained later on and no dispute regarding it will be considered. It was further submitted that parking charges were taken as per Boards Cost Rule 2010. It was further submitted that other necessary facilities have been provided and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP to pay interest @ 15% p.a. on Rs.17,90,000/- from 30.3.2011 to 30.6.2011 and further directed to refund Rs.97,225/- along with 15% p.a. interest and further directed to pay interest @ 10% p.a. on Rs.19,86,215/- from 30.6.2011 till providing all the facilities and further awarded compensation of Rs.50,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.3,000/-. Appeal filed by OP was dismissed by leaned State Commission against which, revision petition was filed before this Commission and this Commission vide order dated 7.8.2013 remanded back the matter to learned State Commission. Learned State Commission again vide order dated 16.9.2013 dismissed appeal. This Commission vide order dated 26.5.2014 again remanded matter back to learned State Commission and learned State Commission vide impugned order again dismissed appeal against which, this revision petition has been filed.
3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused record.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that inspite of no liability to pay interest @ 15% per month on account of delayed delivery of possession and inspite of charging cost of parking space as per rules and providing all the formalities, learned District forum committed error in allowing complaint and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that till now facilities mentioned in the booklet have not been provided and cost of parking space was already included in the cost of construction, order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed.
5. Learned District Forum allowed interest @ 15% p.a. on Rs.17,90,000/- from 30.3.2011 to 30.6.2011 on account of delayed delivery of possession. Admittedly, possession was to be given by 22.4.2011 and possession was given on 30.6.2011 meaning thereby, there was delay of 2 months 8 days instead of 3 months in giving possession. It is not disputed that OP has already made payment of interest @ 6% p.a. for a period of 2 months 8 days as per terms and conditions of application booklet, Complainant was not entitled to interest @ 15% p.a. on account of delayed delivery of possession merely on the ground that OP was charging this rate of interest on delayed payment. Once parties have agreed to terms and conditions of booklet they are bound by that and OP rightly allowed 6% p.a. interest for delayed delivery of possession and learned District forum has committed error in allowing 15% p.a. interest for a period of 3 months whereas there was delay of only 2 months 8 days. Learned State Commission further committed error in upholding this finding and in such circumstances, this direction is liable to set aside.
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that Rs.97,225/- was rightly collected by petitioner on account of stilt parking as per Principles of Costing-2010 issued by petitioner which are applicable from 1.6.2010 on all pending cases as on 1.6.2010 and new cases received after this date. Admittedly, possession was given on 30.6.2011 and in such circumstances; these principles were applicable for ascertaining cost of the flat. As per clause 12.5 of these principles, 5% of the cost of flat for stilt parking was to be charged and OP has charged 5% of the cost for stilt parking provided by OP to the complainant. Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that as per booklet, parking was to be provided and as per RTI information, cost of parking was included in construction cost. Perusal of booklet reveals that in this scheme, proper parking facility was to be provided. Nowhere it has been mentioned that free of charge parking was to be provided and as per Principles of Costing-2010, 5% of the cost of flat is to be charged for stilt parking and 2.5% of the cost of flat for temporary structure. When there was no provision for providing free stilt parking, OP had every right to collect cost of stilt parking which has been fixed 5% of the cost of flat. In allotment letter dated 30.6.2011 it has also specifically been pointed out that parking shall be charged @ 5% for stilt parking and 2.5% for outer parking of cost of flat at the time of possession and in such circumstances, demand of amount for parking facility cannot be said to be unreasonable. Learned Counsel for respondent has drawn my attention towards RTI information dated 12.8.2011 in which in reply to Question No. 7 it was stated that cost of basement parking, guard, society room and common hall is included in structure and finishing of Block-B. Merely on the basis of reply to Question No. 7 under RTI Act, it cannot be held that no separate charges were to be collected for parking whereas, as per Principles of Costing-2010 different rate of cost of the flat was to be charged for different type of parking. In such circumstances, learned District forum committed error in allowing refund of parking charges with interest and learned State commission also committed error in upholding this order.
7. As far refund of Rs.1,96,215/- as demanded by allotment letter dated 30.6.2011 is concerned, learned District Forum has held that this demand is not unreasonable and has declined prayer of the complainant and no appeal has been filed against rejecting this relief which has attained finality.
8. Learned District Forum directed OP to pay interest @ 10% p.a. on Rs.19,86,215/- from 30.6.2011 till providing all amenities and facilities and further directed to pay Rs.50,000/- on account of mental agony. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that most of the facilities have already been provided at the time of handing over possession and some facilities have been provided later on whereas learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that till so far most of the facilities have not been provided. Learned Counsel for the respondent has drawn my attention towards many RTI information from 9.9.2011 to 11.2.2015 in which it has been mentioned that in that scheme work is in progress regarding electricity, road, drainage, etc. Perusal of these information also reveals that allottees have already been provided temporary electricity connection and tenders have been invited for street light and power back up facility. It also further reveals that construction of GSS for supply of electricity had already been completed by 12.9.2012 which is in operation from 31.10.2012. It appears that there was delay in completing roads and providing street light, though, electricity had already been supplied by temporary connection. As per booklet for registration this scheme was to provide shopping centre and other commercial facilities, land scapping and jogging track which have not been completed so far. When these facilities were part of this scheme on the basis of which applicants applied for allotment of flat it was obligatory on the part of OP to provide all these facilities at the time of handing over possession of flat. When these facilities have not been provided complainants are required to be compensated by suitable compensation, but certainly not by directing OP to pay interest @ 10% p.a. on deposited amount.
9. Honble Apex Court in (2007) 6 SCC 711 Bangalore Development Authority Vs. Syndicate Bank has observed that compensation can be granted where complainant has alleged and proved that there has been any negligence, shortcoming or inadequacy on the part of the developing authority in the performance of the functions or obligations in regard to delivery and when the allottee has been subjected to avoidable harassment and mental agony. Admittedly, so far as there is no shopping centre or commercial facilities in the scheme and learned Counsel for the petitioner could not place any document on record to substantiate that there was land scapping and Jogging track as promised in the booklet of the society even after lapse of 4 years from the date of handing over possession, I deem it appropriate to allow compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the respondent instead of order allowing 10% compensation from 30.6.2011 on deposited amount till providing all facilities along with Rs.50,000/- for mental agony and to this extent aforesaid direction of District Forum is to be modified. Learned District forum committed error in allowing interest as well compensation and learned State Commission further committed error in upholding order of District forum.
10. Learned Counsel for the respondent has placed reliance 0n IV (2004) CPJ 589 (NC) Emaar MGF Land Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Krishan Chander Chandna in which damages @ Rs.5,00,000/- were awarded as builders inspite of receiving full consideration had not delivered possession of the property to the allottee. This citation is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case as in the present case possession has already been delivered after 2 months 8 days for which interest has been paid to the complainant as agreed. He also placed reliance on judgment of this Commission in I (1999) CPJ 18 (NC) George Thomas & Ors. Vs. Ghaziabad Development Authority & Ors. in which amount was refunded with 18% p.a. interest as possession was not given as per scheme as scheme was given up. This judgment is not applicable in the case in hand because possession had already been handed over after 2 months 8 days. He also placed reliance on judgment of this Commission in IV (2007) CPJ 79 (NC) Anoop K. Joshi Vs. Ansal Properties & Industries Ltd. in which on account of failure in providing lift upto 6 floorth complainant was held not liable to pay interest for delayed depositing amount. In the case in hand as OP has not provided facilities as projected in the brochure he is entitled to some compensation. He also placed reliance on judgment of Honble Apex Court in III (2000) CPJ 8 (SC) Haryana Urban Development Authority Vs. Rajnish Chander Sharde in which award of 18% interest till delivery of possession of plot was upheld but this case is of no help to complainant as interest has been paid by OP as per agreement.
11. In the light of aforesaid discussion, it becomes clear that complainant is entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation from OP for not providing facilities as projected in the booklet and other reliefs granted by District forum are liable to set aside.
12. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is partly allowed and impugned order dated 23.9.2014 passed by learned State commission in Appeal No. 32 of 2013 - Rajasthan Housing Board Vs. Gyan Singh and order dated 5.12.2012 passed by District Forum in Complaint No.787 of 2012 Gyan Singh Vs. Rajasthan Housing Board & Anr. is partly modified and OP is directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant as compensation within a period of 30 days failing which OP will be liable to pay 12% p.a. interest till payment along with cost of Rs.3,000/- awarded by District forum and rest of the directions regarding refund of Rs.97,225/- and interest on different amounts is set aside. Parties to bear their own costs. ......................J K.S. CHAUDHARI PRESIDING MEMBER
Alert