Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the Rajasthan Housing Board against the judgment of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) which had restored the District Forum's order directing allotment of an LIG tenement to the respondent Ratan Devi at 1992 rates. The respondent had applied for allotment in 1990 and deposited Rs. 4,000 on 21 February 1991. A letter of allotment was issued on 30 April 1992 for House No. 124/53 in the Mansarover Scheme, requiring payment of Rs. 47,674 at the time of possession. The appellant cancelled the allotment on 6 April 1994 alleging non-payment, while the respondent claimed she never received the possession letter or cancellation notice. The District Forum allowed the complaint, but the State Commission set it aside by a split verdict. The NCDRC restored the District Forum's order, holding that balance was payable only at possession, no possession letter was served, and cancellation was not proved. The Supreme Court noted that the respondent's own letters dated 15 April 1996 and 4 May 2008 admitted she could not deposit the balance due to financial weakness, and she sought benefit of the Special Exemption Scheme, 1998, which was denied as the allotment was under Cash Purchase Scheme. The complaint was filed in 2008, nearly 16 years after allotment and 10 years after the exemption scheme rejection. The Court held the complaint was hopelessly barred by limitation under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and the NCDRC's direction to allot at 1992 rates was unsustainable. However, exercising power under Article 142, the Court directed the appellant to pay Rs. 1 lakh to the respondent, over and above the litigation expenses already directed, within two months, and disposed of the appeal.
Headnote
A) Consumer Law - Limitation - Delay in Filing Complaint - Complaint filed nearly 16 years after allotment and 10 years after rejection of exemption scheme was hopelessly barred by limitation under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - The Supreme Court held that the NCDRC erred in restoring the District Forum's order directing allotment at 1992 rates, as the respondent's own letters showed financial inability to pay and the complaint was grossly delayed (Paras 3-4). B) Consumer Law - Allotment of Housing - Refund - Where the allottee failed to pay the balance amount and the complaint is delayed, the authority cannot be directed to hand over possession at old rates - The Supreme Court, under Article 142, directed refund of Rs. 1 lakh plus litigation expenses already paid, instead of allotment (Para 4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the complaint filed before the District Forum was barred by limitation and whether the NCDRC was justified in directing allotment at 1992 rates despite the respondent's inability to pay and delay in filing the complaint.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court set aside the NCDRC's judgment dated 29 January 2018 and allowed the appeal. However, under Article 142, it directed the appellant to pay Rs. 1 lakh to the respondent, over and above the litigation expenses already directed, within two months of receipt of certified copy. The appeal was disposed of.
Law Points
- Limitation under Consumer Protection Act
- 1986
- Delay in filing complaint
- Refund of deposit with interest
- Article 142 of Constitution of India
