1.      The complainant/respondent applied for and was allotted a plot of land measuring 250 sq. yds. in a colony namely Shatabdi Nagar in Meerut.  An allotment letter dated 14.03.1990 was issued to her stating therein that the total estimated price of the plot would be Rs. 1,12,500/-, out of which, Rs. 10,000/- constituted the registration amount and Rs. 25,000/-  was the allotment money. No time schedule for making payment of the balance amount was stipulated in the said allotment letter dated 14.03.1990.

2.      Vide letter dated 29.10.1990, the complainant was informed that the balance amount would be payable in eight installments. The schedule of payment contained in the aforesaid letter dated 29.10.1990, reads as under:

3.      Being aggrieved, the complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint. The said complaint was allowed in the following terms:

          “The complaint filed by the complainant is hereby allowed. The respondent is directed to allot plot no. A-121 Phase-1, Sector 5 admeasuring 250 sq. mtr. to the complainant on previously allotment rates after completing all development work in the plot within one month. In addition, the respondent shall pay interest at the rate of 15% per annum on the amount deposited by the complainant from the date of deposit till the date of giving possession. The complainant shall pay the remaining amount to the respondent. Besides the above, the respondent shall also pay Rs. 5,000/- on account of compensation against mental harassment and Rs. 3,000/- as cost of litigation to the complainant. In case the respondent fails to comply with the order within the stipulated period, the complainant shall have the liberty to take action against the respondent under the provisions of Section 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The respondent to execute registered Sale Deed on the rate of allotment in favour of the complainant.”

Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the petitioner approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal having been dismissed, the petitioner Authority is before this Commission.

4.      Clause 1 & 2 of the aforesaid letter dated 29.10.1990, reads as under:

(1) If the amounts payable to Meerut Development Authority are not paid within the prescribed time limit penal interest at the rate of 18% per annum shall be payable alongwith the payable amount. If the amount is not deposited within three months after the due date alongwith penal interest if the any the allotment shall be treated cancelled without notice.

(2) It is expected that you will be given possession of the plot during 1992. You will be separately informed about the date of possession & other formalities which you will have to comply in a time bound manner otherwise action, as may be prescribed for time to time by the Authority and/or State Government, shall be taken against you.

          It would thus be seen that the complainant was under an obligation to make payment as per the time schedule contained in the aforesaid letter and in the event of delay, interest @ 18% per annum was payable. If the delay persisted beyond three months, after the due date, the allotment was to be treated as cancelled without notice. It is an admitted position that the complainant paid the first and second installments but did not pay the installment no. 3 to 8 which were due on 15.11.90, 15.04.1991, 15.10.1991, 15.04.1992, 15.10.1992, 15.04.1993, 15.10.1993 and 15.04.1994 respectively. Consequently, as per the terms and conditions of the aforesaid letter dated 29.10.1990, the allotment stood cancelled, after three months from the due date of payment.

5.      The learned counsel for the complainants submits that since there was no development at the site, the complainant had no option but to stop making payment of the balance installments. I however, find no merit in the contention. Firstly, the payment plan as contained in the letter dated 29.10.1990 was not a development linked plan but was a time linked plan. Thus, irrespective of the stage of development, payment was required to be made to the petitioner Authority and in the event of delay of three months from the due date, the allotment was to be treated as cancelled. Moreover, the complainant did not even pay one installment which had fallen due in the year 1991 and two installments which had fallen due in the year 1992. Therefore, it would be difficult to say that the complainant had to stop making payment on account of the delay in development on the part of the petitioner Authority.

6.      Since the complainant did not make payment as per the payment schedule contained in the letter dated 29.10.1990 and consequently, the allotment made to her stood cancelled, the impugned orders cannot be justified. The revision petition is accordingly allowed and the complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs. The entire amount which the complainant had deposited with the petitioner Authority shall be refunded to her within four weeks, alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of deposit till the date on which the said amount with interest is paid.