Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by the Rajasthan Housing Board against the judgment of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) which had dismissed the Board's revision petitions. The dispute originated from a General Registration Scheme launched by the Board in 1985. The respondent, Hiralal Chanda, applied for allotment of a Middle Income Group 'B' Category house in Jodhpur on a hire-purchase basis and deposited a registration amount of Rs 5,000. The Board issued a letter of confirmation on 31 May 1985. According to the Board, a reservation-cum-demand letter was issued to the respondent on 3 September 1993 demanding seed money in three installments. The respondent disputed receipt of this letter, claiming it was sent to an old address. However, on 15 April 1999, the Board sent another communication referring to the 1993 letter, which the respondent acknowledged and sought time to deposit the amount. The respondent failed to deposit the seed money, leading to cancellation of his registration on 29 May 2000. The respondent admitted receipt of the cancellation letter in subsequent correspondence in 2008 and 2010. In 2009, the Board adopted a policy decision allowing restoration of cancelled registrations only where the cancellation was due to the Board's administrative mistake. The respondent applied for restoration in 2010 and eventually filed a consumer complaint in 2011 before the District Forum, which directed restoration of registration and allotment at the rate applicable to the next junior applicant. The State Commission and NCDRC upheld this order. The Supreme Court identified two core issues: whether the complaint was barred by limitation under Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and whether the respondent was in default. The Court noted that the cause of action arose on 29 May 2000 when the registration was cancelled, but the complaint was filed in 2011, well beyond the two-year limitation period. The policy decision of 6 August 2009 did not revive the time-barred cause of action, as it only applied to cases of administrative fault, not to cases of allottee default. The Court found that the respondent had received the 1999 letter and the cancellation letter, and had admitted default by seeking time to deposit. The respondent's failure to deposit seed money constituted a breach of obligations. The Court held that the consumer forums erred in entertaining the complaint without considering limitation and in ignoring the respondent's default. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the orders of the District Forum, State Commission, and NCDRC, and dismissed the consumer complaint. The Court noted the Board's offer to allot a house at current rates, but declined to impose such a direction given the respondent's default.
Headnote
A) Consumer Law - Limitation - Section 24A Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Period of Limitation for Filing Complaint - The complaint must be filed within two years from the date of cause of action; condonation requires sufficient cause and recorded reasons - The respondent's registration was cancelled on 29 May 2000, but the complaint was filed in 2011, beyond the limitation period - The policy decision of 6 August 2009 did not revive the time-barred cause of action - Held that the consumer forums erred in entertaining the complaint without considering limitation (Paras 9-11). B) Consumer Law - Deficiency in Service - Default by Allottee - Cancellation of Registration - The respondent failed to deposit seed money despite reminders and admitted receipt of cancellation letter - The respondent's own default disentitled him to relief - The policy decision for restoration applied only where there was administrative fault of the Board, not in cases of allottee's default - Held that the respondent was in breach of obligations (Paras 8, 10-11).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the consumer complaint filed in 2011 challenging the cancellation of registration in 2000 was barred by limitation under Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and whether the respondent was in default.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the orders of the District Forum, State Commission, and NCDRC, and dismissed the consumer complaint. The Court held that the complaint was barred by limitation under Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and the respondent was in default.
Law Points
- Limitation period for consumer complaint
- Cause of action in consumer disputes
- Binding effect of allotment terms
- Policy decision cannot revive time-barred claims
