1.      This Revision Petition No.3146 of 2018 challenges the order of the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (‘State Commission’) dated 06.08.2018. Vide this order, the State Commission dismissed Appeal No. 500 of 2018 and affirmed the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bench No.1, Jaipur (‘District Forum’) dated 01.06.2018 wherein the District Forum allowed the complaint.

2.      As per report of the Registry, there is a delay of 3 days in filing the present Revision Petition. For the reasons stated in IA/2345/2020, the delay is condoned.

3.      For convenience, the parties are referred to as in the original Complaint filed before the learned District Forum.

4.      Brief facts of the case, as per the complainant, are that he registered for allotment of a house in a scheme run by the Opposite Parties (OP) by depositing ₹500 on 29.01.1980. Subsequently, he received a letter to deposit two instalments of ₹900 each as pre-occupation amount, which was paid on 09.10.1985. On 24.05.1986, house number 13/230 in Mansarovar was allotted to him, and ₹3,419 was demanded.  However, upon inspecting the site, the Complainant found the house incomplete and did not deposit the allotment amount. He repeatedly requested a complete house, but the OPs issued another letter on 04.05.1990, asking for ₹500 as a revival amount for reviving the registration. He deposited ₹528 on 26.03.1981 through a bank challan, yet the registration was not revived. On 21.01.1999, the OPs issued a press release offering as golden opportunity under an open sale scheme. The complainant deposited ₹8,000 on 22.01.1999, but the OP returned the amount, citing that he had already been allotted a house. Following a Housing Commissioner order on 28.08.2012, it was stated that applicants with cancelled registrations could revive the same by depositing the revival amount. Consequently, he deposited ₹2,000 on 31.12.2012. On 14.02.2013, the OP instructed him to appear with original documents, which he did on 22.02.2013. However, the OP informed him that the allotment of house No. 13/230 was cancelled on 19.12.1987 due to non-payment of the demanded amount, and there was no ground to revive it. The cancellation of registration even after the demanded amount was paid constituted deficiency in service. Thus, he filed a complaint before the District Forum seeking the revival of the allotment of house at the original rate of registration, along with compensation and litigation costs.

5.      The OP, in their Reply before the District Forum admitted that the complainant had registered under the Registration Scheme for the Economically Weaker Section. However, due to non-payment of the amount demanded in the allotment letter, a notice dated 31.12.1986 was issued to him to deposit the mentioned amount and he failed to do so, leading to a cancellation notice on 19.12.1987. The complainant was informed to produce the original copy of the challan to get the deposited amount back. He applied for revival on 11.01.1990, three years later, and the complaint was filed beyond the limitation period. The request for revival on 26.03.1991 was considered but found not liable for revival as per the registration rules. The OPs contended that the complaint was based on incorrect facts and liable to be dismissed.

6.      The District Forum, vide order dated 01.06.2018 allowed the complaint with the following directions:

“          ORDER

“In view of the foregoing deliberations, the complaint of the Complainant against the Opp. Parties is allowed and it is directed that the Opp. Parties, within one month from today, by reviving the aforementioned registration make the allotment of house at the rate fixed prevailing at the time of registration. Apart from this, the Opp. Parties pay ₹10,000.00 to the Complainant towards compensation and ₹5,000.00 towards cost of filing the complaint totaling to ₹15,000.00 (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only) within two months from today otherwise the Complainant shall be entitled to get interest @ 9% per annum from today till the date of its recovery.”                          (Extracted from translated copy)

7.      On Appeal, the State Commission, vide order dated 06.08.2018 affirmed the District Forum order dated 01.06.2018 as follows:

“Heard Appellants. Order passed District Forum has been perused.

It is correct that in 1986 demand letter was issued and on account of not depositing of said amount, in the year 1987 the registration was cancelled but, thereafter, the Appellant had offered to deposit ₹2,000 (Rupees Two Thousand Only) and to send application for reviving the registration. According to the said proposal, the Respondent had deposited ₹2,000, receipt of which has produced before District Forum as Ex.21, despite this also by not reviving the allotment, the Appellant has committed deficiency in service and District Forum has appropriately imposed compensation.

The Appellant has stated that the complaint has not been filed within limitation, but this contention is unnecessary. On 11.03.2013 the registration was not revived and on the same day cause of action has arisen and complaint has been filed within limitation. Therefore, the appeal having no force is not liable to be accepted, hence rejected.”

(Extracted from translated copy)

8.      The learned Counsel for Petitioner Board reiterated the grounds taken in the Revision Petition and Reply filed before the District Forum.  He averred that the Petitioner is a statutory body and runs under the principle of ‘no profit not loss’ with no funds of its own. He contended that what the State Commission failed to take into consideration is that the complainant was defaulter in paying the demanded amount and in this event the allotment was cancelled. He further contended that both the Fora below failed to consider and understand the scope of application of the doctrines of “lex non cogit ad impossibilia and “impossibilium nulla obligation est”. He further submitted that the Fora below have exercised jurisdiction not vested in them by the law.  He sought to allow the present Revision Petition and set aside the orders of both the Fora below.  He has relied upon the following judgments:

A. Ghaziabad Development Authority vs. Ved Prakash Agrawal, II 2008 CPJ 13 SC;

B. Rajasthan Housing Board & Anr. Vs. Ratan Devi, (2020) 14 SCC 797;

C. Rajasthan Housing Board & Ors. Vs. Hiralal Chanda, (2022) 1 RCR (Civil) 550;

D. Rajasthan Housing Board Vs. Raj Kumar Bansal (2017) 3 CPR 639;

E. DDA vs. Pushpendra Singh Jain, JT 1994 SC 292;

F. Kishandas M. Inani vs. Secretary Rajasthan Housing Board, II (1992) CPJ 923;

G. Mukund Damodar Raghav vs. CIDCO Ltd., III (2015) CPJ (NC) 29;

H. Bareilly Development Authority Vs. Ajay Pal Singh, (1989) 2 SCC 116.

9.      On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the Respondent/ Complainant reiterated the averments made in the Complaint before the District Forum. He has argued in favour of the concurrent findings of the Fora below and sought dismissal of the Revision Petition.  He has relied upon the following judgments:

A. Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta vs. M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2011 11 SCC 269;

B. Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel and Ors., Vs. H & R Johnson (India) Ltd. and Ors., 2016) 8 SCC 286.

10.    I have examined the pleadings and associated documents placed on record, including the orders of the both the learned fora, and rendered thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsels for both the parties.

11.    It is undisputed that the complainant registered for the allotment of a house in a scheme run by the OP and deposited ₹500 on 29.01.1980. Thereafter, he claimed to have deposited two instalments of ₹900 each as pre-occupation amount on 09.10.1985 and on 24.05.1986, he was allotted House No. 13/230 in Mansarovar, and the OPs demanded payment of ₹3,419. It is the complainant’s contention that he inspected the site and found the house incomplete. Therefore, he did not deposit the allotment amount but repeatedly requested for a complete house. After about 4 years, OPs issued another letter on 04.05.1990 asking him to deposit ₹500 for reviving the registration. While he paid the same about 10 months later on 26.03.1991, the registration was not revived. About 8 years thereafter, on 21.01.1999, the OPs issued a press release offering as golden opportunity under an open sale scheme. While he deposited ₹8,000 on 22.01.1999, the OPs returned the amount, citing that he had already been allotted a house. Subsequently, are per him after about 32 years from the initial notification in 1980, the Housing Commissioner had issued an order on 28.08.2012 vide which the applicants with cancelled registrations could revived by depositing the revival amount and the complainant deposited ₹2,000 on 31.12.2012. On 14.02.2013 he was instructed to appear with original documents, which he did on 22.02.2013. However, he was informed that the allotment of house No. 13/230 was cancelled on 19.12.1987 itself due to non-payment of the demanded amount, and there was no ground to revive the same. It is the contention of the complainant that the cancellation of registration even after the demanded amount was paid constituted deficiency in service. On the other hand, while the OP admitted that the complainant had registered under the said scheme, he did not pay the amount due as per the allotment letter. Thus, he was issued notice dated 31.12.1986 to deposit the amount mentioned and he failed to do so. Due to non-payment the allotment was cancelled vide letter dated 19.12.1987 and he was informed to produce the original copy of the challan to get the refund of deposited amount. He applied for revival after over three years on 26.03.1991, which was considered but found not liable for revival as per the registration rules.

12.    Therefore, it is undisputed that the complainant failed to pay the allotment dues as per notice. While he claimed that the unit was incomplete, the same was negated by the OPs. As a consequence of non-payment of dues, the allotment was cancelled. The complainant has not contested the cancellation and, however, sought revival of the allotment. No justification is noticeable for such protracted delay in making the basic payments, which resulted in cancellation of allotment as well as request for revival. About 8 years thereafter, based on a notification dated 21.01.1999, he deposited ₹8,000 on 22.01.1999 and, however, the OPs returned the amount. 13 years later based on a notification dated 28.08.2012 he sought revival of the same by depositing ₹2,000 on 31.12.2012. On 22.02.2013 he was informed again that the allotment of house No. 13/230 was cancelled on 19.12.1987 itself due to non-payment of the demanded amount, and there was no ground to revive the same. Therefore, clearly, the allotment of the unit in question was cancelled on 19.12.1987 as a sequel to non-payment of consideration due, which is not under challenge. His contention that the unit was incomplete is also unsubstantiated. The OP Board is a statutory body and runs under the principle of ‘no profit no loss’. The OP Board decided that the request for revival of cancellation at such belated stage was not feasible as per the policy.

13.    Without doubt, the allotment of the unit to the complainant was cancelled due to his default in payment as per policy on 19.12.1987. His attempts for belated revivals at the same consideration were disallowed for the reasons stated. While clearly the complainant admittedly paid ₹500 on 29.01.1980 and ₹1800 on 09.10.1985 and thereafter defaulted the basic payments due. In the absence of the complainant establishing good reasons for default, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs. In any case, a defaulter cannot be put to substantial advantage against the other compliant allottees of the OP Board, which functions on ‘no profit no loss’ basis. The complainant is however entitled for refund of the amount deposited with interest. Therefore, the orders of learned District Forum and the learned State Commission are liable to be interfered with.

14.    In view of the foregoing the order of learned District Forum in CC No. 1343/2013 dated 01.06.2018 and the learned State Commission in FA No. 500 of 2018 dated 06.08.2018 are modified as under:-

ORDER

1. The Opposite Parties are directed to refund the amount deposited by the complainant along with simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of final payment, within a period of one month from the date of this order. In the event of delay, the amount payable shall carry simple interest @ 12% per annum from the date of expiry of one month till the realization of the entire amount;

2.  There shall be no order as to costs.

15.    With the above directions the Revision Petition No. 3146 of 2018 stands disposed of.

16.    All pending Applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.