SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
A.P. Sahi, President and Bharatkumar Pandya, Member
Yogesh K. Mehta and Anr. – Appellant
versus
Doordarshan Employees Co-Op. Housing Society Ltd. and Ors. – Respondents
First Appeal No.263 of 2012 with
IA No.10164 of 2021, (Directions),
IA No.3744 of 2025 (Waiver of Costs),
IA No.15545 of 2024 (Directions),
IA No.4334 of 2021 (Directions),
First Appeal No.447 of 2012 with
IA No.10163 of 2021 (Directions),
IA No.3743 of 2025 (Waiver of Costs)
Decided on 2.12.2025

Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Ms. Prabhati Naya, Mr. Tushar Garg and Ms. Soubhagya Ranjan, Advocates
For the Respondent:Mr. Sumit Kumar and Mr. Nishant Panicker, Advocates

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Discriminatory Conduct by Society – The Commission found the Society’s actions to be unfair and deficient. While the complainant had requested an extension of time, the Society ignored this request and cancelled his allotment, yet simultaneously passed resolutions giving other defaulting members an additional 10 days to clear their dues.
(2) No Estoppel Against Statute – The complainant argued the Society could not appeal the new order because they didn’t appeal the first round of litigation. The NCDRC rejected this, stating that once the previous order was set aside and remanded for a fresh decision, the Society retained its statutory right to appeal the new judgment.

Headnote:

Consumer Protection Act – Housing – Illegal Cancellation of Allotment – Persistent Default vs. Discriminatory Treatment – Complainant (a former Society Chairperson) was allotted a flat – Society cancelled the allotment citing default in payments despite the complainant’s request for a six-month extension due to his son’s education costs – Society re-allotted the flat to a third party (OP No. 4); State Commission Findings – Held the Society’s action as “deficient” and “discriminatory” because other defaulters were granted extensions while the complainant was not – Relief – Due to the third-party interest (re-allotment), the State Commission awarded a lumpsum compensation of Rs. 50 lakhs based on current market value rather than physical possession – NCDRC Holding – Upheld the State Commission’s order – held that while the cancellation was illegal, the quantified compensation was a “balanced view” given the complainant’s own slight default in payment – both appeals (for enhancement and for setting aside the order) dismissed.

ORDER

Both these appeals question the correctness of a common order passed by the SCDRC, Maharashtra in CC/241/2001 dated 07.03.2012 whereby the complaint of Mr. Y.K. Mehta, the appellant in FA/263/2012 has been allowed. The said appellant aggrieved by the quantum awarded has filed Appeal No.263/2012.

2. The Housing Society has been directed to pay Rs.50 lacs to the complainant together with other costs imposed that has filed FA/447/2012 assailing the order on the ground that the complainant was not entitled for any relief as he was a defaulter and the Society had in accordance with the Bye-laws appropriately cancelled his allotment and thereafter had re-allotted the premises to Mr. Mohan Joshi, the opposite party No.4. The prayer made by the Society is therefore to set aside the impugned order passed by the State Commission.

3. The background of the case is that undisputedly Mr. Mehta is a member of the Society and was also its Chairperson between 1989 - 1999. He was allotted flat No.702 as per the allotment letter dated 29.04.1999 which is extracted herein under:—

“Dated: 29/4/99

Allotment of Flat

To,

Shri Y.K. Mehta

106, Babar Road,

New Delhi 110001

We hereby allot you a flat in the building Mohana “A” Wing Flat No.702 on Seventh Floor on the prescribed building of our Society.

The total cost of the flat is valued Rs.6,55,025/- approx. and the area admeasuring 985 sq. ft.

We have received a sum of Rs.1,60,860/- so far by cheque as and by the way of advance payment in respect of the flat.

...... Sd/- .......

Secretary”

4. A perusal thereof would indicate that against a total cost of Rs.6,55,025/-, a certain amount had been received by cheque that is stated therein. The Society raised a demand on 12.10.1999 and once again on 25.10.1999 and other reminders with regard to the balance of the payment. Admittedly, the complainant Mr. Mehta wrote a letter on 08.11.1999 praying for extension of six months’ time to clear his dues as his son’s final year MBA exam and cost of education had intervened. Letter dated 08.11.1999 at page 165 is extracted herein under: -

“From:

Y.K. Mehta

106, Babar Road,

New Delhi-110001

Date: 8.11.1999

To:

Shri A.C. Johny,

Secretary, Doordarshan Employees’ Cop.

Group Housing Society Ltd., Bombay-63

Sir,

In response to your notice dated 25.10.1999, I wish you to request you to kindly allow me six months time to clear my dues in view of my son’s Final year MBA cost of education. I shall also be grateful if the Society could arrange suitable loan for me as mentioned in your minutes dated 31.12.1998 (on page 5). If so, I may clear my dues at the earliest.

With kind regards,

Yours Faithfully

........ Sd/- ........

(Y.K. Mehta)”

5. According to the complainant, the Managing Committee of the Society and the General Body did not entertain the said request of the complainant and instead on 12.11.1999 the Managing Committee made a recommendation to the General Body to cancel the allotment, which recommendation was taken up in the 10th Annual General Body Meeting that was held on 13.11.1999. A resolution was passed by the General Body regarding the allotment of Mr. Y.K. Mehta alongwith other allottees which according to the Society were allegedly defaulters. Resolution No.7 of the General Body is extracted herein under:—

“Date: 16.11.1999

Minutes of the 10th Annual General Body Meeting

The 10th Annual General Body Meeting was held on 13.11.1999 under the Chairmanship of Shri S.C. Bhosle at 5.45 p.m. at the building site, 60 members were present.

1. The Chairman asked the body whether to read previous General body meetings minutes or not the members said not necessary, the minutes were passed unanimously.

Proposed by Hebber Solomon

Seconded by J.N. Keskar.

2. The report for the year 1995-99 was read by the Secretary, and passed unanimously.

Proposed by D. Venkitachalam

Seconded by S.P. Satar.

3. Copies of audited Statement of Accounts for the year 1996-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top