ORDER

Subhash Chandra, Presiding Member—This Revision Petition has been filed under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, “the Act”) challenging order dated 19.04.2017 of the Rajasthan State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench, Bikaner (in short, the ‘State Commission’) dismissing Appeal No. 81 of 2012 confirming the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bikaner (in short, “District Forum”) in Consumer Complaint No. 109 of 2011 dated 19.04.2012.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and given careful consideration to the material placed on record and the arguments urged before us.

3. The delay of 27 days in the filing of the revision petition had been condoned on 06.02.2018 subject to payment of Rs.10,000/- to the respondent. The delay of 27 days in the filing of the revision petition was considered in light of the application seeking condonation of delay. The application was allowed in the interest of justice and the delay condoned.

4. The relevant facts of this case, in brief, are that respondent deposited Rs.96,000/- on 19.03.2008 with the petitioner for allotment of a Category A plot under the Highway City Residential Scheme and was allotted Plot No. HIG A-31, Pocket A, Highway City, Kanpur Nagar ad-measuring 240 sq m @ Rs.4000 per sq m on 17.05.2008. The tentative consideration of the plot was Rs.10,56,000/- of which Rs.1,68,000/- was to be deposited on or before 05.06.2008 towards ¼ of the total amount, inclusive of the payment made earlier. The balance was to be paid in 12 quarterly instalments @ Rs.83,170/- with interest at 15% from 05.09.2008 with the penalty for failure to be cancellation with forfeiture of 20% of the deposit. Respondent failed to make the necessary deposit despite several reminders. On 30.03.2013, respondent approached petitioner for a One Time Settlement (OTS) by depositing Rs.26,000/- charges, Rs.1,68,000/- towards 1/4th the cost of plot and Rs.500/- Miscellaneous charges. As per the OTS letter dated 26.04.2013, Rs.14,51,588/- was due to be paid in two instalments of Rs.7,25,794 each by 30.04.2013 and 30.05.2013, with grace of 30 and 60 days respectively for the instalments but with 15% interest. Consent for excess area of 69.06 sq m land was also sought. Despite the admitted receipt of the letter on 10.05.2013 payments were not made and hence another letter requiring payment of Rs.17,66,743/- was issued on 07.10.2013 followed by reminders. Thereafter the allotment was cancelled on 06.11.2013. A representation dated 18.12.2013 for reconsideration was rejected on 04.02.2014 on the ground that the cancellation was due to default by allottee respondent. Subsequently an appeal dated 29.12.2014 was also turned down on grounds of jurisdiction. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (“District Forum”) was approached in February 2015 which was decided on contest 20.02.2016 allowing the complaint with the direction to hand over possession. In appeal against this order, the State Commission on 26.10.2016 held concurrently and dismissed the appeal. This order is impugned before us.

5. The revision petition has been filed on the grounds that the fora below erred in not considering that the respondent had defaulted in making payments despite seeking implementation of the OTS conveyed vide letter dated 26.04.2013 received by him on 10.05.2013. Hence, in view of the default the allotment could not be extended indefinitely as the payment had also not been made. The direction of the District Forum directing allotment of the increased area of 69.06 sq ft at the original allotment rates was also contested, since the petitioner was a no profit entity.

6. Per contra, the respondent contended that he had been unable to make the payments due to severe illness and that after recovering and his financial health improving, he had made efforts to get the allotment revived under the OTS scheme. On 30.03.2013, he deposited Rs.3,14,500/-. Accord