Summary
The direction to deliver a housing-board tenement at the 1992 allotment price was set aside. The allottee’s own letters admitted inability to pay the balance because of financial difficulties, and the consumer complaint followed almost a decade after rejection of her request for a special scheme benefit. The complaint was time-barred. Exercising Article 142 jurisdiction, the Court instead directed payment of Rs.1 lakh in addition to the litigation expenses earlier ordered.
Issues
- Whether the delayed consumer complaint justified delivery at the original allotment price.
- What monetary relief should be granted in the circumstances.
Held
- The allottee’s letters acknowledged that financial inability prevented payment of the balance. She approached the consumer forum nearly sixteen years after allotment and almost ten years after rejection of the exemption request; the complaint was beyond limitation. (¶ 9–10)
- The Board could not be compelled on these facts to hand over the tenement or remain bound to the 1992 rates. The NCDRC’s restoration of that relief was unsustainable. (¶ 10–11)
- In exercise of Article 142, a total payment of Rs.1 lakh was directed over and above the litigation expenses ordered during the appeal. (¶ 12–13)
Result
Appeal disposed of; NCDRC judgment set aside. Board directed to pay the respondent Rs.1 lakh in addition to previously directed litigation expenses within two months of receipt of a certified copy; pending applications disposed of.