Binay Krishna Vs.
Bihar State Housing Board  INSC 247 (9 February 2009)
JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.826 OF 2009 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.24578 of
2005) Binay Krishna ...Appellant(s) Versus Bihar State Housing Board
O R D E R
In response to an
advertisement issued by the respondent-Bihar State Housing Board (for short,
"the Board"), in 1978, the appellant deposited a sum of Rs.5,000/-
for allotment of a plot. After thirteen years, he was informed about allotment
of plot measuring 1825 sq. ft. and was asked to deposit Rs.35,530/-. The
appellant deposited the required amount on 28.10.1991, but possession of the
plot was not given to him. The complaint filed by the appellant was disposed of
by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar (for short,
"the State Commission") vide its order dated 6th July, 1995 whereby
the Board was directed to pay interest on the amount of Rs.35,530/- @ 18% per
annum from the date of deposit till the delivery of possession of the plot. The
Board was also directed to pay Rs.30,000/- by way of compensation and
Rs.1,000/- towards litigation cost. The Board challenged that order by filing
an appeal before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for
short, "the National Commission") which was registered as ...2/- -2-
First Appeal No. 494/1995. By an order dated 8th February, 1996, the National
Commission declined to stay the award of interest, but directed that the
payment of Rs.30,000/- as compensation will not be enforced till disposal of
the appeal, if the Board pays a sum of Rs.15,000/- within one month along with
As the Board failed
to comply with the aforesaid interim order, the National Commission by its
order dated 29th November, 2001, dismissed the appeal.
That order was set
aside by this Court in C.A. No.2304 of 2004 and the National Commission was
directed to dispose of the appeal on merits in accordance with law.
After remand, the
National Commission passed the impugned order wherein it came to be recorded
that the appellant made a statement that he was not interested in the allotment
of plot. The National Commission reduced the rate of interest from 18% to 5%
albeit without assigning any reason. Hence, this appeal by special leave.
On 2.1.2006, this
Court, after taking note of the statement made by the appellant that he is very
much interested in the plot because at the age of 76 years he has no shelter,
directed him to approach the National Commission by filing appropriate
application. Thereafter, the appellant filed an application for modification of
order dated 4th July, 2005. The same was dismissed by the National Commission
vide its order dated 11th August, 2006.
Heard the appellant,
who has appeared in-person.
A perusal of the
record shows that the appellant has been continuously making complaint regarding
non-delivery of possession of the plot. This was the categorical position taken
by him before the State Commission. In the special leave petition, he made a
specific grievance that he did not make any statement before the National
Commission that he was ...3/- -3- not interested in taking possession of the
plot. The Board has not filed reply to controvert this assertion. Therefore, it
is reasonable to take the view that the National Commission, under some
mistaken impression made a recording in its order dated 4th July, 2005 about
the statement allegedly made by the appellant that he was not interested in the
allotment of plot. Therefore, dismissal of the application filed by the
appellant for modification of that order was not at all justified.
We are also of the
view that there was absolutely no justification for the National Commission to
reduce the rate of interest from 18% to 5% per annum and not to indicate the
time period for which the interest was payable by the Board.
appeal is allowed, impugned order passed by the National Commission on 4th
July, 2005 in First Appeal No. 494 of 1995 and order dated 11th August, 2006,
dismissing the application for modification are set aside and the appeal filed
by the respondent-Board before the National Commission is dismissed.
order passed by the State Commission is restored.