Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – In 1990, the Respondent applied for the allotment of tenement in the LIG category in the Mansarover Scheme and deposited Rs 4,000/- – Case of the appellant that since the respondent failed to deposit the balance of Rs.47,674/-, the allotment was cancelled on 6 April 1994 – Respondent disputed having received the letter of possession and stated that the balance payment was to be made only against possession – Order of the District Forum, allowing the complaint, restored by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) – On appeal, held: By the first letter dtd. 15 April 1996, addressed by the respondent to the appellant, the respondent admitted that she was unable to deposit Rs.47,674/- but was now ready to deposit the amount – In subsequent letter also, the respondent specifically stated that she was unable to deposit the amount because of her weak financial condition – Thus, at the material time, the respondent was not in a position to comply with the terms of the allotment which required the payment of the balance amount of Rs.47,674/ – Thereafter, the consumer complaint was instituted before the District Forum only in 2008 – This was nearly
16 years after the allotment was made to the respondent – Further, after the respondent was informed in 1998 that her request for the grant of benefit under the Special Exemption Scheme had been disallowed, since the house in question was allotted to her under the Cash Purchase Scheme, the respondent waited almost a decade before moving the District Forum – Complaint before the District Forum was hopelessly delayed and was filed beyond the period of limitation as prescribed under the 1986 Act – Appellant could not have been directed to hand over the tenement to the respondent – Order of the NCDRC, set aside – However, in terms of the interim order passed by Supreme Court on 23rd April, 2018, the respondent be paid Rs.1 lakh by the appellant, over and above the litigation expenses – Further, in exercise of the jurisdiction u/Art.142 of the Constitution, the amount of Rs 25,000/- deposited by the appellant is directed to be refunded – Constitution of India – Art.142.
In 1990, the Respondent applied for the allotment of tenement in the LIG category in the Mansarover Scheme and deposited Rs 4,000/- on 21 February, 1991. The Letter of allotment issued to the respondent intimating allotment of tenement, stipulated that Rs 47,674/- was payable at the time of possession. As per the appellant, the respondent failed to deposit the balance, as a result of which the allotment was cancelled on 6 April 1994. However, the respondent contended that she did not receive the letter of possession and that the payment of the balance was to be made only against possession. The District Forum allowed the complaint. The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission by a split verdict set aside the order of the District Forum. However, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission restored the order of the District Forum. Hence, the present appeal.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 By the first letter dated 15 April 1996, the respondent specifically admitted that she was unable to deposit the amount of Rs 47,674/- and she was now ready to deposit the amount. The respondent specifically stated that she was unable to deposit the amount because of her financial condition. Thereafter, the respondent sought the benefit of the Special Exemption Scheme, 1998. However, she was informed that since the house in question had been alloted to her under the Cash Purchase Scheme, the benefit of the Special Exemption Scheme could not be made available to her. In a subsequent letter dated
4 May 2008, the respondent again stated that as her financial condition was weak, she could not deposit the balance of Rs 47,674/- at that time. The facts clearly indicate that at the material time, the respondent was not in a position to comply with the terms of the allotment which required the payment of the balance amount of Rs 47,674. Thereafter, the consumer complaint was instituted before the District Forum only in the year 2008. This was nearly 16 years after the allotment was made to the respondent. After the respondent was informed in 1998 that her request for the grant of benefit under the Special Exemption Scheme had been disallowed, the respondent waited almost a decade before moving the District Forum. The complaint before the District Forum was hopelessly delayed and was filed beyond the period of limitation as prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The appellant could not have been directed to hand over the tenement to the respondent. In any event, the authority could not have been held down to the rates of 1992. There is no basis in principle for such a direction. [Paras 9, 10] [959-D-G; 960-A-D]
1.2 The judgment and order of the NCDRC was
unsustainable and the same is set aside. However, in the exercise of the jurisdiction of Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, direction is issued for refund of the amount of Rs 25,000 which was deposited by the appellant. In terms of the interim order passed by Supreme Court on 23 April 2018, the respondent should be paid Rs 1 lakh by the appellant, over and above the litigation expenses as directed by Supreme Court. [Paras 11, 12] [960-C-E]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.