RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD Vs. DEVENDRA KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition under sec. 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the 'Act') assails the order dtd. 8/5/2014 in Appeal No. 814 of 2012 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench-II, Jaipur, Rajasthan (in short, the 'State Commission') dismissing the appeal and upholding order dtd. 22/5/2012 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jodhpur (in short, the 'District Forum') in Consumer Case no. 771 of 2010.

(2.) The facts of the case according to the petitioner, in brief, are that it had registered the respondent under the Gharonda Scheme for the year 2004 as per his application dtd. 29/12/2004 on payment of Rs.2,500.00. Although seed money of Rs.3,000.00 was not deposited by him before draw of lots, despite letter dtd. 21/5/2005, the petitioner allotted house no 5/124, NEB Extension, Alwar and issued allotment letter dtd. 27/5/2005. Respondent was required to deposit Rs.8533.00 within one month before 17/7/2006 followed by first installment before 15/7/2006. The petitioner deposited Rs.3,000.00 towards seed money on 23/6/2005. Respondent was asked by registered post to deposit Rs.8,533.00 on 4/8/2006 within 10 days. However, only Rs.4,000.00 was deposited on 25/8/2006. Another notice was given vide letter dtd. 26/8/2006 to pay the balance amount failing which allotment would be cancelled. As no deposit was made by the respondent despite three letters, the petitioner cancelled the allotment on 18/10/2006. Aggrieved, the respondent filed consumer complaint no. 771/2012 on 28/6/2011 which was contested as being barred by limitation by 5 years and on the grounds that the respondent failed to deposit the amount of Rs.8,533.00 as per allotment letter despite opportunities. The District Forum dismissed the complaint on the ground that the respondent had failed to deposit the money in time. However, on appeal in Appeal no. 814/2012, the State Commission allowed the appeal which is impugned by way of this revision petition.

(3.) The petitioner has contended that the impugned order has erred in not considering the documents on record and in not appreciating that the complaint is hopelessly barred by time, having been filed after almost 5 years. The State Commission has also not appreciated that the respondent has been a habitual defaulter in making payments, even though he had been considered for the allotment despite having defaulted in payment. As per the allotment letter dtd. 27/5/2006, Rs.8,533.00 was required to be paid before 14/7/2006 after which the first installment was to be paid by 15/7/2005. The State Commission failed to appreciate that the cancellation was valid as the payments were not made in time by the respondent and that the full amount was not paid at any given point of time. Accordingly, it is prayed that the impugned order be set aside.