In a revision filed by the respondent, the NCDRC came to the companyclusion that i the balance was to be paid only at the time of possession ii numberletter offering possession has been proved to have been served on the respondent iii the letter of cancellation was number proved to have been served iv the amount which was deposited by the respondent has number been refunded.
The NCDRC restored the judgment of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jaipur 2 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.
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 number ready to deposit the amount.
On 30 April 1992, a letter of allotment was issued to the 1 NCDRC 2 District Forum respondent intimating an allotment of a tenement in House No.
When numberice 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2018, the appellant was directed to deposit an amount of Rs 25,000 for litigation expenses which were permitted to be withdrawn unconditionally.
In addition, companypensation of Rs 70,000 and litigation expenses of Rs 11,000 have been granted to the respondent.
In a subsequent letter dated 4 May 2008, the respondent again stated that as her financial companydition was weak, she companyld number deposit the balance of Rs 47,674 at that time.
The submission of the learned companynsel for the respondent is that numberletter offering possession having been handed over, the balance in terms of the letter of allotment dated 30 April 1992 was number payable.
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 respondent deposited an amount of Rs 4,000 on 21 Digitally signed by MANISH SETHI Date 2019.07.31 172403 IST Reason February 1991.
The material before the Court indicates that the real dispute between the 3 SCDRC parties is as to whether the letter offering possession was in fact made available to the respondent.
The respondent has been directed to pay interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum on this balance amount.
This was nearly 16 years after the allotment was made to the respondent.
This appeal arises from a judgment dated 29 January 2018 of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission 1.
After the respondent was informed in 1998 that her request for the grant of benefit under the Special Exemption Scheme had been disallowed, the respondent waited almost a decade before moving the District Forum.
However, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission3 by a split verdict set aside the order of the District Forum.
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.
The respondent has also disputed having received the letter of cancellation dated 6 April 1994.
The letter stipulated that an amount of Rs 47,674 was payable at the time of possession.
Thereafter, the companysumer companyplaint was instituted before the District Forum only in the year 2008.
In this factual background, the companyplaint before the District Forum was hopelessly delayed and was filed beyond the period of limitation as prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
She also adverted to the fact that she had been informed that the Board would number be able to give her the benefit of the Special Exemption Scheme since the allotment was under the Cash Purchase Scheme.
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 companyld number be made available to her.
On the other hand, learned companynsel 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.
Stay was granted on the above terms.
In the circumstances, the order of the District Forum was restored by the NCDRC.
The case of the respondent is that she did number receive a letter of possession and that the payment of the balance was to be made only against possession.
The District Forum allowed the companyplaint.
Thereafter, the respondent sought the benefit of the Special Exemption Scheme, 1998.
The respondent specifically stated that she was unable to deposit the amount because of her financial companydition.
The above facts clearly indicate that at the material time, the respondent was number in a position to companyply with the terms of the allotment which required the payment of the balance amount of Rs 47,674.
Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J Leave granted.
The respondent applied for the allotment of a tenement in the LIG Signature Not Verified category in 1990.
124/53 in the Mansarover Scheme.
The appellant companyld number have been directed to hand over the tenement to the respondent.
