The court’s legal analysis in a recent case focused on consumer rights and obligations in a housing dispute. The judgment sheds light on the importance of fulfilling terms and conditions as a prospective allottee, emphasizing on the binding effect of allotment terms. The significance of the two-year limitation for filing a complaint under Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act was also highlighted. Stay informed about the legal implications of consumer disputes by reading more.
Facts
- The appellant launched a General Registration Scheme in 1985.
- The respondent applied for allotment of a Middle Income Group ‘B’ Category house in Jodhpur.
- A letter of confirmation acknowledging receipt of payment and confirming registration was issued to the respondent.
- A reservation-cum-demand letter was issued to the respondent in 1993, demanding seed money for house allotment.
- The Housing Board took a policy decision in 2009, following which the respondent applied for restoration of registration in 2010.
- The appellant requested proof of deposit for seed money from the respondent in 1999.
- The registration of the respondent was cancelled in 2000 for failing to deposit the seed money or advance amount.
- The respondent was requested to comply with formalities for refund of Rs 5,000 in the cancellation letter.
- The NCDRC dismissed the revision petitions challenging the decisions of lower consumer disputes redressal forums.
Also Read: Court’s Jurisdiction in Re-appraising Arbitrator’s Findings
Issue
- The main issue to consider is whether there was a default on the part of the appellant or if the respondent breached their obligations as a prospective allottee.
Also Read: Contrary Directions in Issuance of Letter of Intent
Analysis
- In State Bank of India v. BS Agricultural Industries, the court emphasized the legislative mandate of the limitation prescribed under Section 24A.
- HUDA v. Tej Refrigeration Industries Ltd. reaffirmed the importance of consumer forums complying with the requirements of Section 24A.
- Chief Administrator PUDA and Ors. v. Shabnam Virk discussed the binding effect of terms and conditions of allotment on consumers.
- The appellant communicated to the respondent on 15 April 1999 requiring proof of deposit of seed money as per the previous letter of 3 September 1993.
- The respondent, an advocate, did not deny receiving the earlier letter and asked for time to deposit the amount, which he never did.
- The registration was eventually cancelled on 29 May 2000 after the respondent failed to make the required deposit.
- The respondent received both the demand letter (15 April 1999) and the cancellation letter (29 May 2000).
- The cause of action was deemed time-barred before the policy decision on 6 August 2009.
- Consumer is bound to pay the increased price as per the terms of the allotment.
- Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 sets a two-year limitation for filing a complaint.
- District Forum ruled in favor of the respondent citing lack of proof of receipt, ignoring clear references in letters.
- The appellant was entitled to cancel allotment due to respondent’s failure to fulfill conditions.
- NCRC’s decision on cause of action based on the 2009 policy decision was erroneous.
- Adjudication on a time-barred complaint is illegal and liable to be set aside.
- No formal allotment was made to the respondent; only registration under the Scheme upon initial deposit.
- Respondent will be given an alternate allotment at current prevailing rates if willing.
- If respondent does not accept the alternate allotment, registration money will be refunded according to Housing Board policy.
- Delay on respondent’s part in challenging allotment cancellation and case not within policy decision scope of August 6, 2009.
- Housing Board willing to make allotment to respondent, but not at the rate directed by District Forum.
Also Read: Application for Stay in Civil Suit Rejected: Court’s Legal Analysis
Decision
- 15 Pending applications stand disposed of.
- 9 14 The appeals stand disposed of in the above terms.
- Subject to the recording of the above statement made on behalf of the Housing Board, the appeals are allowed and the impugned judgment and order of the NCDRC dated 4 October 2018 in Revision Petition No 613-614 of 2017 are set aside.
Case Title: COMMISSIONER RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD Vs. HIRALAL CHANDA (2021 INSC 869)
Case Number: C.A. No.-007651-007652 / 2021
