This revision petition challenges the order dated 08.07.2010 of the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur (in short, he State Commission. By this order, the State Commission set aside the order dated 15.12.2009 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (in short, he District Forum dismissing the complaint of the respondent/complainant and directed the petitioner/respondent as under: . From the record, it appears that at the time of making application for allotment of house under the scheme, it was made clear by the appellant/complainant that he was applying for allotment under the quota of disabled persons and as per Column no. 11 of the application his option was only for payment in monthly instalments. When this application was given by the appellant/complainant and the plot/house was to be allotted with monthly instalments facility, then it was upto R.D.A. to allot a plot or house or not to allot a plot or house. Particularly when the complainant/ appellant is a person of 70 years of age and is a disabled person also and is saying that no financial institution is ready to provide him loan at this advance age and he is to deposit the amount in lump sum, then his case as a very special case, should have been considered by the R.D.A. separately and in not doing so, the R.D.A. has committed deficiency in service. 8. Therefore, we allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order passed by the District Forum. We direct the respondent/ OP to consider the application of the appellant/ complainant for allotment of house under the quota of disabled persons with the facility of payment of cost in monthly instalment as a pecial case With these directions, the appeal is disposed of. No order as to cost to this appeal 2. I have heard Mr. Mohan Chouksey, learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. Mr. Chouksey short point is that the petitioner authority does not have any more access to institutional finance and is hence unable to grant instalment facility to the respondent/complainant for paying the balance cost of the house in question. However, as rightly observed in the impugned order of the State Commission, the respondent/complainant had clearly stated that he was a disabled person of 70 years of age and not in a position to raise loan from any bank in order to pay the balance cost of the house in three or four lump-sum instalments. In such a situation, it was for the petitioner authority, to either accept the special plea of the respondent/complainant for the facility of instalment payment or not to allot a house to him at all. Considering the fact that the initial scheme envisaged payment of balance cost of the house in a number of instalments and the specific difficulty pointed out by the respondent/complainant, it would not be in the interest of justice orequity to interfere with the impugned order of the State Commission under the provisions of section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The amount of money to be deposited by the respondent/complainant is not large and for a development authority like the petitioner it should not be difficult to make special accommodation for the 70 year old disabled respondent/complainant and grant him the facility of instalment payment as directed by the State Commission. For the sake of clarity, it may be observed that the petitioner authority would be within its rights to charge appropriate rate of interest while fixing the number and amount of instalments to be paid by the respondent/complainant, in line with the relevant provisions of in the initial scheme in these respects. 4. Accordingly, the revision petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.