COMMISSIONER, RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD AND OTHERS versus HIRALAL CHANDA

Citation: [2021] 12 S.C.R. 586 · Decided: 11-12-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
586
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 12 S.C.R.
   [2021] 12 S.C.R. 586
586
COMMISSIONER, RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD
AND OTHERS
v.
HIRALAL CHANDA
(Civil Appeal Nos 7651-7652 of 2021)
DECEMBER 11, 2021
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
A. S. BOPANNA, JJ.]
Consumer Protection Act, 1986: s.24-A – Appellant-Housing
Board launched a scheme for allotment of house on hire purchase
mode of payment – Respondent submitted the application on
23.2.1985 and deposited a registration amount of Rs.5000/- – On
3.9.1993, appellant issued reservation-cum-demand letter
demanding seed money to be deposited in three instalments for the
allotment of house under the scheme – Respondent alleged that the
said letter was addressed at an earlier location which he had left
while appellant stated that the said place was the one notified to it
by respondent – On 15.4.1999, appellant issued letter requiring
the production of a challan for the deposit of seed money –
Respondent sought time for same – On 29.07.1999, respondent was
again called upon to produce proof of deposit – Eventually on
29.05.2000, registration of respondent was cancelled on account
of failure to deposit seed money – Respondent was also asked to
comply with formalities to effectuate refund of Rs.5000/- – On
6.8.2009, Housing Board took policy decision to restore registration
where same were cancelled due to administrative mistake of Board
if application for restoration is filed within one year  from the date
of cancellation of registration – Eventually, respondent applied for
restoration on 2.8.2010 which was followed by a notice of demand
– Respondent filed consumer complaint complaining deficiency of
service and challenging cancellation of allotment – District Forum
held in favour of respondent and directed the appellant to allot the
respondent a house within six months at the rate which was applicable
on the date when it was allotted to the next junior applicant – State
Commission and National Commission confirmed the decision of
District Forum – Hence instant appeal – Held: s.24A of the Act
1986 provides the period of limitation for filing a complaint – A
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
587
period of two years has been provided for filing a complaint from
the date on which the cause of action arose – In the present case,
the cancellation took place on 29.5.2000 which was preceded by a
letter of the respondent dated 3.5.1999 by which he had expressly
stated that he would be making a deposit within one and a half
months – Even after the cancellation, there was no challenge to the
cancellation of the allotment – The cause of action became barred
by time much prior to office order dated 6.8.2009 – The National
Commission erred in holding that the cause of action arose on the
issuance of office order dated 6.8.2009 because even on its plain
terms, the policy decision would not revive the registration of the
appellant which was cancelled due to his own default – District
Forum failed to notice that the respondent had received both the
letter dated 15.4.1999 as well as the letter of cancellation of
29.5.2000 – Moreover, letter dated 15.4.1999 contained a clear
reference to the earlier letter of the Housing Board of 1993 – It
would be far-fetched to assume that while the respondent had
received several letters from the Housing Board, he had not received
the letter demanding the seed money in the first place – In conclusion,
besides the delay on the part of the respondent in espousing his
rights to challenge the cancellation of the allotment, the case did
not clearly fall within the ambit of the policy decision which was
taken on 6.8.2009.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. No formal allotment was ever made to the
respondent and upon the deposit of the initial amount towards
registration, his name was registered under the Scheme.
According to the appellant, a letter was addressed to the
respondent on 3 September 1993 requiring the deposit of seed
money or an advance in three installments under the Scheme.
The respondent disputes the receipt of the letter and the District
Forum primarily held in his favour on the ground that the appellant
ought to have produced proof of receipt, which was not done.
The important circumstance, which has a bearing on the case,
however, is that thereafter, the appellant communicated to the
respondent on 15 April 1999 requiring him to produce proof of
deposit of the seed money in terms of the earlier letter of 3
September 1993. There was a clear referen

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.