Rajasthan Housing Board vs Ratan Devi

This appeal arises from a judgment dated 29 January 2018 of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission 1. The NCDRC restored the judgment of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jaipur 2 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 category in 1990. The respondent deposited an amount of Rs 4,000 on 21 February 1991. On 30 April 1992, a letter of allotment was issued to the 1 “NCDRC” 2 “District Forum” 2 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.

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.

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2018, the appellant was directed to deposit an amount of Rs 25,000 for litigation expenses which were permitted to be withdrawn unconditionally.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 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 4 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.

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.

…..…………................................J. (Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud) .…………………………...............J. (Indira Banerjee) New Delhi July 22, 2019 5 ITEM NO.28 COURT NO.10 SECTION XVII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 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 :