RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD & ANR versus RATAN DEVI

Citation: [2019] 10 S.C.R. 955 · Decided: 22-07-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
955
RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD & ANR
v.
RATAN DEVI
(Civil Appeal No.5739 of 2019)
JULY 22, 2019
[DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.]
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
[2019] 10 S.C.R. 955
   955
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
956
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 10  S.C.R.
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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
957
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 responde

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