Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J
Leave granted.
This appeal arises from a judgment dated 29 January 2018 of the National
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission1. The NCDRC restored the judgment
of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jaipur2 dated 2 January 2014
directing the appellant to allot an LIG tenement in the Mansarover Scheme to the
respondent against the payment of a balance of Rs 47,674 as mentioned in the
allotment letter dated 30 April 1992. The respondent has been directed to pay
interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum on this balance amount. In addition,
compensation of Rs 70,000 and litigation expenses of Rs 11,000 have been
granted to the respondent.
The respondent applied for the allotment of a tenement in the LIG
1 “NCDRC”
2 “District Forum”
respondent intimating an allotment of a tenement in House No. 124/53 in the
Mansarover Scheme. The letter stipulated that an amount of Rs 47,674 was
payable at the time of possession.
According to the appellant, the respondent failed to deposit the balance as
a result of which the allotment was cancelled on 6 April 1994. The case of the
respondent is that she did not receive a letter of possession and that the payment
of the balance was to be made only against possession. The respondent has also
disputed having received the letter of cancellation dated 6 April 1994.
The District Forum allowed the complaint. However, the State Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission3 by a split verdict set aside the order of the
District Forum.
In a revision filed by the respondent, the NCDRC came to the conclusion
that (i) the balance was to be paid only at the time of possession; (ii) no letter
offering possession has been proved to have been served on the respondent; (iii)
the letter of cancellation was not proved to have been served; (iv) the amount
which was deposited by the respondent has not been refunded. In the
circumstances, the order of the District Forum was restored by the NCDRC.
When notice was issued on 23 April 2018, the appellant was directed to
deposit an amount of Rs 25,000 for litigation expenses which were permitted to be
withdrawn unconditionally. This Court also recorded the statement of the
appellant, that the amount deposited by the respondent together with interest and
penalty may be returned to the respondent. Stay was granted on the above
terms.
The material before the Court indicates that the real dispute between the
3 “SCDRC”
parties is as to whether the letter offering possession was in fact made available
to the respondent. The submission of the learned counsel for the respondent is
that no letter offering possession having been handed over, the balance in terms
of the letter of allotment dated 30 April 1992 was not payable.
On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant
has drawn the attention of the Court to two letters which were addressed by the
respondent to the appellant. 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. She also
adverted to the fact that she had been informed that the Board would not be able
to give her the benefit of the Special Exemption Scheme since the allotment was
under the Cash Purchase Scheme.
The above 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. In this factual background, 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.
For the above reasons, we are of the view that the judgment and order of
the NCDRC was unsustainable. We accordingly, set aside the judgment and order
dated 29 January 2018.
However, in the exercise of the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 142
of the Constitution of India, we are inclined to issue a direction for refund of the
amount of Rs 25,000 which was deposited by the appellant. In terms of the
interim order passed by this Court on 23 April 2018, we are of the view that the
respondent should be paid a total amount of Rs 1 lakh by the appellant, over and
above the litigation expenses as directed by this Court.
The aforesaid payment shall be made within a period of two months of the
receipt of a certified copy of this order.
The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud)
(Indira Banerjee) New Delhi July 22, 2019
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 9862/2018
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 29-01-2018 in RP No. 2364/2015 passed by the National Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi)
RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD & ANR. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
RATAN DEVI Respondent(s)
Date : 22-07-2019 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
For Petitioner(s)
Mr. K. L. Janjani, AOR
Mr. Pankaj Kumar Singh, Adv.
Ms. Varsha Rana, Adv.
For Respondent(s)
Mr. Abhinav Shrivastava, Adv.
Ms. Preetika Dwivedi, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed reportable
judgment.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file)