Case Note & Summary
The case pertains to a dispute between the Indore Development Authority (appellant) and Dr. Hemant Mandovra (respondent) regarding the allotment of a plot in Scheme No. 54, Indore. The appellant issued an NIT on 05.10.1994, and the respondent was allotted Plot No. 314 on 02.01.1995 with a payment plan requiring 50% upfront and the balance in 12 quarterly instalments. The respondent paid the initial amount but defaulted on subsequent instalments, leading to cancellation of the allotment on 22.03.2000. The respondent challenged the cancellation by filing a writ petition before the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which on 01.08.2006 directed the appellant to restore the allotment and handover possession upon payment of the outstanding amount of Rs. 12,02,592/- within 30 days. The respondent deposited only Rs. 5,72,782/- via demand draft, which was returned as it was not the full amount. Subsequently, the appellant reduced the interest and demanded Rs. 11,04,948/- payable by 28.02.2009, but the respondent failed to pay. Instead, he filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, which was dismissed on 25.02.2015. He then filed a writ petition which was withdrawn on 08.04.2015 with liberty to avail statutory remedy, and thereafter appealed to the State Commission. The State Commission, by an interim order dated 15.12.2017, directed the appellant to accept the outstanding amount with interest and deliver possession. The National Commission upheld this direction on 29.03.2023. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the respondent was in default and that after 28 years, it was not justified to compel the appellant to accept the amount and handover possession. The Court set aside the orders of the State Commission and National Commission, and directed the appellant to issue a fresh tender for the plot.
Headnote
A) Consumer Law - Interim Relief - Final Relief at Interim Stage - The State Commission granted final relief by way of an interim order directing the appellant to accept the outstanding amount and deliver possession, which is impermissible in law. Held that final relief cannot be granted on an interlocutory application. (Paras 10-11) B) Consumer Law - Laches and Delay - Allotment of Plot - The respondent defaulted in depositing the balance amount as per the terms of the NIT issued in 1994, and even after the High Court order in 2006, he failed to pay the full outstanding amount. After a lapse of 28 years, directing the appellant to accept the amount and handover possession is not justified. Held that no such order could be passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances. (Paras 9-11) C) Consumer Law - Allotment Cancellation - Default in Payment - The respondent's allotment was cancelled on 22.03.2000 due to non-payment of instalments. Despite reduction of interest by the appellant, the respondent did not deposit the reduced amount and instead approached consumer forums. Held that the respondent committed default and the orders of the consumer fora are set aside. (Paras 3-5, 10-11)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the National Commission was justified in directing the appellant to accept the deposit and handover possession of the plot after a lapse of 28 years, despite the respondent's default in payment.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Orders of State Commission dated 15.12.2017 and National Commission dated 29.03.2023 set aside. Appellant directed to issue fresh tender for the plot and allot by auction or due process.
Law Points
- Consumer Protection Act
- 1986
- Section 12
- Section 13(3B)
- Interim relief cannot grant final relief
- Laches and delay
- Default in payment
- Allotment cancellation
