IMPORTANT POINT
A defaulter deserves no sympathy from National Commission.

J. M. Malik, Presiding Member—Learned counsel for the petitioner present. Arguments heard.

2. Kanpur Development Authority, the opposite party in this case, allotted a house in favour of the complainant, Shri Zahir Ahmed. The said house was allotted on lease and the policy was decided as per the Government notification dated 16.6.1993. The petitioner was put in the possession of the house. The total tentative amount determined by the Government was Rs. 3,17,730/-. The complainant deposited an amount of Rs.88,000/- towards the ¼ of the cost of the house, on 22.3.1997. However, the OP did not execute the conveyance deed. The complainant further deposited a sum of Rs.9390/-, which is liable to be adjusted towards the sale price. The complainant requested in writing for deposit of the remaining amount and to execute the conveyance deed vide applications dated 28.10.1998, 30.11.1998, 3.3.2000, 22.10.2000 but the needful was not done.

3. Aggrieved by that, the complainant filed a writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court and the Hon’ble High Court vide its order dated 28.10.2009 passed the following order:

“Sri A. K. Tiwari, learned counsel holding brief of Sri Vivek Verma, learned counsel for the respondent is present.

The petitioner has contended before this Court that appropriate authority of Kanpur Development Authority is required to execute a registered sale deed of quarter No. 13/1, Ajeetganj Colony, First T. P. Nagar, Kanpur Nagar in favour of the petitioner after depositing the remaining amount of the whole assessment. However, it appears to us that a sum of Rs.88,000.00 has been deposited by the petitioner. According to the petitioner he has to make such deposit before the execution of the sale deed as per the government order dated 16.6.1993. According to the counter affidavit of the respondent a sum of Rs.3,17,730.00 is the tentative valuation. The respondent has further stated in the counter affidavit that other formalities are also required to be done.

Hence, we dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the petitioner to deposit the rest of the amount with the authority concerned within a period of seven days from the date of communication of this order to it. Subject to such deposit, the concerned authority is directed to execute the sale deed after Redressal of grievances of the petitioner in respect of any short fall and other formalities, if any which is required to be done, upon being called, within a period of seven days thereafter. If the dispute is only with regard to any short fall and formality, the same will be done within a further period of one week and the formalities for execution of registered sale ded will be made within a period of two weeks thereafter. However, in case dispute remains, even after the deposit of the said sum and for further formalities, the same will be adjudicated by the civil court in an appropriate suit for specific performance or declaration.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of without imposing any cost.”

4. The Hon’ble High Court has given seven days to the complainant to deposit the amount but there is no inkling in the evidence on record that the order of Hon’ble High Court was complied with within one week

5. The District Forum accepted the complaint and ordered the complainant to deposit the amount within 60 days vide its order dated 22.5.2012. The complainant accordingly deposited the amount in the sum of Rs.2,29,730/- in the month of June 20, 2012 after three years from the date of the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court. It is thus clear that the District Forum committed an egregious mistake by ignoring the order of Hon’ble High court. This rather tentamounts to contempt of court proceedings. The Hon’ble High Court made a clear, specific and unequivocal observation that the power of the civil court will start only after the deposit of the amount within one week. There is no evidence that the rest of amount was paid. This amount was actual