Supreme Court of India
RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD & ANR versus RATAN DEVI on 22 July 2019
[2019] 10 S.C.R. 955
RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD & ANR
v.
RATAN DEVI
(Civil Appeal No.5739 of 2019)
JULY 22, 2019
[DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD ANDINDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.]
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – In 1990, the Respondentapplied for the allotment of tenement in the LIG category in theMansarover Scheme and deposited Rs 4,000/- – Case of theappellant that since the respondent failed to deposit the balance ofRs.47,674/-, the allotment was cancelled on 6 April 1994 –Respondent disputed having received the letter of possession andstated that the balance payment was to be made only againstpossession – 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 respondentadmitted that she was unable to deposit Rs.47,674/- but was nowready to deposit the amount – In subsequent letter also, therespondent specifically stated that she was unable to deposit theamount because of her weak financial condition – Thus, at thematerial time, the respondent was not in a position to comply withthe terms of the allotment which required the payment of the balanceamount of Rs.47,674/ – Thereafter, the consumer complaint wasinstituted before the District Forum only in 2008 – This was nearly16 years after the allotment was made to the respondent – Further,after the respondent was informed in 1998 that her request for thegrant of benefit under the Special Exemption Scheme had beendisallowed, since the house in question was allotted to her underthe Cash Purchase Scheme, the respondent waited almost a decadebefore moving the District Forum – Complaint before the DistrictForum was hopelessly delayed and was filed beyond the period oflimitation as prescribed under the 1986 Act – Appellant could nothave been directed to hand over the tenement to the respondent –Order of the NCDRC, set aside – However, in terms of the interim
955
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
Aorder passed by Supreme Court on 23rd April, 2018, the respondentbe paid Rs.1 lakh by the appellant, over and above the litigationexpenses – Further, in exercise of the jurisdiction u/Art.142of the Constitution, the amount of Rs 25,000/- depositedby the appellant is directed to be refunded – Constitution of India –Art.142.
B
In 1990, the Respondent applied for the allotment oftenement in the LIG category in the Mansarover Scheme anddeposited Rs 4,000/- on 21 February, 1991. The Letter ofallotment issued to the respondent intimating allotment ofCtenement, stipulated that Rs 47,674/- was payable at the time ofpossession. As per the appellant, the respondent failed to depositthe balance, as a result of which the allotment was cancelled on 6April 1994. However, the respondent contended that she did notreceive the letter of possession and that the payment of thebalance was to be made only against possession. The DistrictDForum allowed the complaint. The State Consumer DisputesRedressal Commission by a split verdict set aside the order ofthe District Forum. However, the National Consumer DisputesRedressal Commission restored the order of the District Forum.Hence, the present appeal.
E
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Conclusion
E
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 By the first letter dated 15 April 1996, therespondent specifically admitted that she was unable to depositthe amount of Rs 47,674/- and she was now ready to deposit theFamount. The respondent specifically stated that she was unableto deposit the amount because of her financial condition.Thereafter, the respondent sought the benefit of the SpecialExemption Scheme, 1998. However, she was informed that sincethe house in question had been alloted to her under the CashPurchase Scheme, the benefit of the Special Exemption SchemeGcould not be made available to her. In a subsequent letter dated4 May 2008, the respondent again stated that as her financialcondition was weak, she could not deposit the balance ofRs 47,674/- at that time. The facts clearly indicate that at the material time, the respondent was not in a position to complywith the terms of the allotment which required the payment ofthe balance amount of Rs 47,674. Thereafter, the consumercomplaint was instituted before the District Forum only in theyear 2008. This was nearly 16 years after the allotment was madeto the respondent. After the respondent was informed in 1998that her request for the grant of benefit under the SpecialExemption Scheme had been disallowed, the respondent waitedalmost a decade before moving the District Forum. The complaintbefore the District Forum was hopelessly delayed and was filedbeyond the period of limitation as prescribed under the ConsumerProtection Act, 1986. The appellant could not have been directedto hand over the tenement to the respondent. In any event, theauthority 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 wasunsustainable and the same is set aside. However, in the exerciseof the jurisdiction of Supreme Court under Article 142 of theConstitution of India, direction is issued for refund of the amountof Rs 25,000 which was deposited by the appellant. In terms ofthe interim order passed by Supreme Court on 23 April 2018,the respondent should be paid Rs 1 lakh by the appellant, overand above the litigation expenses as directed by Supreme Court.[Paras 11, 12] [960-C-E]
CIVIL APP ELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.5739 of2019
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.01.2018 of the NationalCommission Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in RevisionPetition No. 2364 of 2015
K. L. Janjani, Pankaj Kumar Singh, Ms. Varsha Rana, Advs. forthe Appellants.
Abhinav Shrivastava and Ms. Preetika Dwivedi, Advs. for theRespondent.
AB
C
DE
F
G
H
958SUPREME COURT REPORTS
AThe Judgment of the Court was delivered byDR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal arises from a judgment dated 29 January 2018 ofBthe National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission[1]. The NCDRCrestored the judgment of the District Consumer Disputes RedressalForum, Jaipur[2] dated 2 January 2014 directing the appellant to allot anLIG tenement in the Mansarover Scheme to the respondent against thepayment of a balance of Rs 47,674 as mentioned in the allotment letterdated 30 April 1992. The respondent has been directed to pay interest atCthe 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 havebeen granted to the respondent.
3. The respondent applied for the allotment of a tenement in theLIG category in 1990. The respondent deposited an amount of Rs 4,000Don 21 February 1991. On 30 April 1992, a letter of allotment was issuedto the respondent intimating an allotment of a tenement in House No.124/53 in the Mansarover Scheme. The letter stipulated that an amountof Rs 47,674 was payable at the time of possession.
4. According to the appellant, the respondent failed to deposit theEbalance as a result of which the allotment was cancelled on 6 April1994. The case of the respondent is that she did not receive a letter ofpossession and that the payment of the balance was to be made onlyagainst possession. The respondent has also disputed having receivedthe letter of cancellation dated 6 April 1994.
F5. The District Forum allowed the complaint. However, the StateConsumer Disputes Redressal Commission[3] by a split verdict set asidethe order of the District Forum.
6. In a revision filed by the respondent, the NCDRC came to theconclusion that (i) the balance was to be paid only at the time of possession;G(ii) no letter offering possession has been proved to have been served onthe respondent; (iii) the letter of cancellation was not proved to havebeen served; (iv) the amount which was deposited by the respondent 1 “NCDRC”
2 “District Forum”
H3 “SCDRC”
has not been refunded. In the circumstances, the order of the DistrictForum was restored by the NCDRC.
7. When notice was issued on 23 April 2018, the appellant wasdirected to deposit an amount of Rs 25,000 for litigation expenses whichwere permitted to be withdrawn unconditionally. This Court also recordedthe statement of the appellant, that the amount deposited by therespondent together with interest and penalty may be returned to therespondent. Stay was granted on the above terms.
8. The material before the Court indicates that the real disputebetween the parties is as to whether the letter offering possession wasin fact made available to the respondent. The submission of the learnedcounsel for the respondent is that no letter offering possession havingbeen handed over, the balance in terms of the letter of allotment dated30 April 1992 was not payable.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of theappellant has drawn the attention of the Court to two letters which wereaddressed by the respondent to the appellant. By the first letter dated 15April 1996, the respondent specifically admitted that she was unable todeposit the amount of Rs 47,674 and she was now ready to deposit theamount. The respondent specifically stated that she was unable to depositthe amount because of her financial condition. Thereafter, the respondentsought the benefit of the Special Exemption Scheme, 1998. However,she was informed that since the house in question had been alloted toher under the Cash Purchase Scheme, the benefit of the SpecialExemption Scheme could not be made available to her. In a subsequentletter dated 4 May 2008, the respondent again stated that as her financialcondition was weak, she could not deposit the balance of Rs 47,674 atthat time. She also adverted to the fact that she had been informed thatthe Board would not be able to give her the benefit of the SpecialExemption Scheme since the allotment was under the Cash PurchaseScheme.
10. The above facts clearly indicate that at the material time, therespondent was not in a position to comply with the terms of the allotmentwhich required the payment of the balance amount of Rs 47,674.Thereafter, the consumer complaint was instituted before the District A
B
C
D
E
F
G
AForum only in the year 2008. This was nearly 16 years after the allotmentwas made to the respondent. After the respondent was informed in1998 that her request for the grant of benefit under the Special ExemptionScheme had been disallowed, the respondent waited almost a decadebefore moving the District Forum. In this factual background, thecomplaint before the District Forum was hopelessly delayed and wasBfiled beyond the period of limitation as prescribed under the ConsumerProtection Act, 1986. The appellant could not have been directed tohand over the tenement to the respondent. In any event, the authoritycould not have been held down to the rates of 1992. There is no basis inprinciple for such a direction.
C
11. For the above reasons, we are of the view that the judgmentand order of the NCDRC was unsustainable. We accordingly, set asidethe judgment and order dated 29 January 2018.
12. However, in the exercise of the jurisdiction of this Court underArticle 142 of the Constitution of India, we are inclined to issue a directionDfor refund of the amount of Rs 25,000 which was deposited by theappellant. In terms of the interim order passed by this Court on 23 April2018, we are of the view that the respondent should be paid a totalamount of Rs 1 lakh by the appellant, over and above the litigationexpenses as directed by this Court.
E13. The aforesaid payment shall be made within a period of twomonths of the receipt of a certified copy of this order.
14. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.
15. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
F
Divya Pandey
Appeal disposed of.
G
H