A consumer's inability to pay on time alongside a failure to issue demands timely does not constitute a deficiency in service warranting relief.

1. The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioners against Respondent as detailed above, under S.21 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 29.11.2018 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as the 'State Commission'), in First Appeal (FA) No. 353 of 2018 in which order dated 8.5.2018 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ajmer (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Consumer Complaint (CC) No. 23 of 2014 was challenged, inter alia praying for setting aside the judgment dated 29.11.2018 passed by State Commission, in Appeal No. 353/2018 and confirming the judgment dated 8.5.2018 passed by the District Forum, Ajmer in Complaint No. 23/2014.

2. While the Revision Petitioners (hereinafter also referred to as Petitioners) were Respondents and the Respondent (hereinafter also referred to as Respondent / Complainant) was Appellant in the said FA353/2018 before the State Commission the Revision Petitioners were OPs and Respondent was Complainant before the District Commission in the CC No. 23/2014. Notice was issued to the Respondents on 6.3.2020. Parties filed Written Arguments / Synopsis on 21.6.2023 and 23.1.2023 respectively.

3. Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Commission and other case records are that:

(i) The respondent / complainant - Shiv Charan Singh Chauhan purchased the corner plot No. 607, measuring 299 sq.yard in Hari Bhau Upadhyay Nagar (Extension) Scheme of the petitioners / OPs - Ajmer Development Authority on 23.1.2007 @ Rs. 7,000 per sq.yards for consideration amount of Rs. 20,93,000 and deposited Rs. 5,25,000. However, according to letter dated 6.2.2007 of the OP, the Respondent / complainant should have paid ¾th amount of the consideration i.e. Rs. 15,68,000 within 60 days. But the Respondent / complainant could not deposit the said amount. The Respondent / complainant wrote many letters between 13.7.2007 to 23.11.2011 to the OPs requesting for issuance of demand letter but no response was given to him. The complainant made request to the Minister of Local Self Department and on his instructions the State Government vide his letter dated 13.3.2013 instructed to the OP for sending the demand letter. In pursuance to the said letter the OPs issued demand letter dated 12.4.2013 demanding the original amount with penalty and interest. The Respondent / complainant deposited the amount under protest on 1.5.2015 and got the lease deed registered. The complainant pleaded in his complaint that due to negligence and deficient services of the OPs, the complainant suffered a loss of of Rs. 8,22,234. Hence, the complainant filed consumer complaint before the District Forum and prayed for relief. The OPs contested the complaint filed by the complainant by filing their reply denying the allegations alleged by the complainant.

(ii) It was submitted by the OPs that the complainant did not deposit the amount within stipulated time. Reply to Complainant's letter dated 13.7.2007 was given by the OPs on 19.7.2007. In view of the request letter dated 19.12.2007, the complainant was permitted to deposit the amount upto 31.1.2008 through letter dated 9.1.2008. Despite the opportunity, the complainant did not deposit the amount upto 31.1.2008. vide letter dated 28.2.2012, the OPs informed the complainant about cancellation of his plot before the Board. Thereafter, the State Government sanctioned the deposit of complainant on the ground of depositing original amount, with interest and penalt