NCDRC Holds Rajasthan Housing Board Liable For Deficiency In Service For Arbitrary Cancelling Booking

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Justice Sudip Ahluwalia and Mr. Rohit Kumar Singh, held that raising demand for additional amounts and arbitrary cancelling of the booked flat amounts as deficiency in service. Brief Facts of the Case The Rajasthan Housing Board/developer launched a housing scheme offering flats in different income categories. The complainant applied for a flat under the Middle Income Group (MIG-A) but declared conflicting income figures in affidavits. Due to the mismatch, the developer demanded an additional registration amount of Rs. 70,000, which the complainant eventually paid after repeated reminders. However, the developer canceled the registration, citing misrepresentation and submission of false affidavits, and initiated legal action. The complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum seeking allotment and compensation. The District Forum dismissed the complaint, holding that the complainant was not entitled to a flat due to false income declarations. On appeal by the complainant, the State Commission reversed the District Forum's decision, ruling in favor of the complainant and allowing the appeal. Consequently, the developer filed a revision petition before the National Commission. Contentions of the Developer The developer argued that the complainant provided contradictory affidavits regarding her income and failed to deposit the required registration amount of Rs. 1,20,000 for her income category as per the scheme's terms. While the complainant applied for an MIG-A category house, the State Commission directed the restoration of registration under the HIG category, to which she neither applied nor requested in her complaint. The developer contended that mere registration does not entitle the complainant to claim benefits under the Consumer Protection Act without participating in the lottery draw. Thus, the developer sought to have the State Commission's order set aside, arguing it to be unsustainable. Observations by the National Commission The National Commission observed that the cancellation of the house allotment by the developer amounts to deficiency in service. It was noted that the complainant complied with all requirements, including submitting the income certificate and depositing the additional amount demanded by the developer after reclassification to the High Income Group (HIG) category. Despite this, the developer failed to inform the complainant about the cancellation, leaving her unaware until she filed an RTI. The Commission highlighted that the developer's actions, including raising the demand for the additional amount and subsequently reversing their decision without proper communication, were unjust and unreasonable. The internal note suggesting that the difference amount should have been deposited earlier was deemed baseless, as the demand itself was raised years later. The developer neither investigated discrepancies in the income affidavit nor questioned the complainant about it. Consequently, the Commission upheld the State Commission's order and confirmed that the cancellation was a clear deficiency in service by the developer. Case Title: Rajasthan Housing Board Vs. Lata Chaudhary Case Number: R. P. No. 733/2018 Click Here To Read/Download The Order

NCDRC Holds Rajasthan Housing Board Liable For Deficiency In Service For Arbitrary Cancelling Booking

Ayushi Rani

Tags