1

REPORTABLE

        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

    Civil Appeal No(s).  5739  of  2019 (@ SLP(C) No. 9862 of 2018)

Rajasthan Housing Board & Anr             Appellant(s)

                               Versus

Ratan Devi              Respondent(s)

JUDGMENT

Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J

Leave granted.

This appeal arises from a judgment dated 29 January 2018 of the National

Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission1.  The NCDRC restored the judgment

of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jaipur2 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.    

According to the appellant, the respondent failed to deposit the balance as

a result of which the allotment was cancelled on 6 April 1994. The case of the

respondent is that she did not receive a letter of possession and that the payment

of the balance was to be made only against possession. The respondent has also

disputed having received the letter of cancellation dated 6 April 1994.  

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.

In a revision filed by the respondent, the NCDRC came to the conclusion

that (i) the balance was to be paid only at the time of possession; (ii) no letter

offering possession has been proved to have been served on the respondent; (iii)

the letter of cancellation was not proved to have been served; (iv) the amount

which   was   deposited  by  the  respondent  has  not  been  refunded.   In the

circumstances,  the order of the District Forum was restored by the NCDRC.

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 material before the Court indicates that the real dispute between the

3 “SCDRC”

3

parties is as to whether the letter offering possession was in fact made available

to the respondent.  The submission of the learned counsel for the respondent is

that no letter offering possession having been handed over, the balance in terms

of the letter of allotment dated 30 April 1992 was not payable.

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant

has drawn the attention of the Court to two letters which were addressed by the

respondent to the appellant. 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.  She also

adverted to the fact that she had been informed that the Board would not be able

to give her the benefit of the Special Exemption Scheme since the allotment was

under the Cash Purchase Scheme.

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.

However, in the exercise of the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 142

of the Constitution of India, we are inclined to issue a direction for refund of the

amount  of  Rs 25,000 which was deposited by the appellant.   In  terms of  the

interim order passed by this Court on 23 April 2018, we are of the view that the

respondent should be paid a total amount of Rs 1 lakh by the appellant, over and

above the litigation expenses as directed by this Court.

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 :           HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD          HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDIRA BANERJEE

For Petitioner(s)                     Mr. K. L. Janjani, AOR

Mr. Pankaj Kumar Singh, Adv. Ms. Varsha Rana, Adv.

                   For Respondent(s)

Mr. Abhinav Shrivastava, Adv.                     Ms. Preetika Dwivedi, AOR                     

         UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following                              O R D E R

Leave granted.

The appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed reportable

judgment.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

(MANISH SETHI)                                  (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR) COURT MASTER (SH)                                  BRANCH OFFICER

(Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file)