State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mohinder Pal S/O Kalu Ram vs Chief Sales Commissioner-Cum-Deputy ... on 16 October, 2009
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
SCO NOS.3009-12, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
Original Complaint No.40 of 2008
Date of institution: 14.08.2008
Date of decision : 16.10.2009
Mohinder Pal s/o Kalu Ram resident of House No.B-1-1347, Chhowni Mohalla,
Ludhiana, District Ludhiana through General Power of Attorney Holder Joginder
Malik w/o Shri Kashmiri Lal Malik s/o Shri Jiwan Dass resident of House No.B-
1291, Chhowni Mohalla, Ludhiana, District Ludhiana.
.....Complainant
Versus
1. Chief Sales Commissioner-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Ludhiana.
2. The Tehsildar (Sales), Ludhiana
3. The State of Punjab through Principal Secretary, Revenue Department.
.....Respondents
Consumer Complaint under the Consumer
Protection Act, 1986.
Before:-
Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.N.Aggarwal, President
Lt.Col. Darshan Singh (Retd.), Member
Sh.Piare Lal Garg, Member Present:-
For the complainant : Sh.Vikram Bali, Advocate For the respondents : Ex parte JUSTICE S.N.AGGARWAL, PRESIDENT Mohinder Pal complainant had purchased plot No.5 comprised in Khasra No.14//22/3 min measuring 171 square yards in the revenue limits of village Haibowal Kalan, 102, Tehsil and District Ludhiana in open auction from the respondents. He had made the payment of Rs.6200/- on 25.11.1992 and Rs.24,800/- was deposited on 27.12.1995. It was the entire consideration. Therefore, the complainant was the consumer of the respondents.
2. It was further pleaded that afterwards, the respondents again ordered for re-auction of this plot. It was challenged by the complainant before the Chief Sales Commissioner, Ludhiana. The appeal of the complainant was accepted and Consumer Complaint No.40 of 2008 2 the purchase which was made by the complainant on 25.11.1992 was upheld. That order had become final. Thereafter, the Tehsildar Sales, Ludhiana vide letter dated 25.03.1996 directed the lower officials that the complainant be put in possession of this plot and proclamation be also issued. Kanungo went at the spot for giving possession of this plot to the complainant but he apprehended breach of peace and sought police help. However, the possession of this plot has not been delivered to the complainant so far even when the building plan of this plot has been approved by the competent authority.
3. It was further pleaded that since possession of this plot has not been given to the complainant, he has suffered financial loss as he could not raise construction over this plot. The prices of all components of construction like steel, cement, wood, labour, electrical and other fittings are rising up. The complainant went to the respondents many times and also sent letters on 04.06.2007 and 21.03.2008 but the respondents had failed to deliver the possession of this plot to the complainant. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondents, the complainant filed this complaint against them seeking direction against the respondents to deliver physical possession of the plot. Compensation, interest and costs were also prayed.
4. The respondents failed to appear in spite of service. They were, accordingly, proceeded against exparte.
5. The learned counsel for the complainant placed reliance upon the judgments reported as Juliet Quadros v. Mrs.Malti Kumar and Ors, 2005 (2) CPC 162", P.Gopakrishna Nair v. Sunrise Builders, 2004 (1) CPC 220, Sukhjit Singh Chandi v. M/s Spice Telecom and others, 2005 (1) CPC 261, Status Builders and Developers v. Clement George K. & Ors., 2008 (1) CPC 390, M/s Kashiprasad Cotton Pvt. Ltd. Adilabad & anr v. Smt.Kamaladevi Kanhaiyalal Shrawagi & another, 2005 (2) CPC 242 in support of the plea that the complaint is within limitation.
6. Record has been perused. Submissions have been considered. Consumer Complaint No.40 of 2008 3
7. The complainant had purchased the plot in open auction on 25.11.1992 as per his own pleadings. He had also deposited a part payment on that date. The remaining payment was made on 27.12.1995. If the respondents had failed to deliver possession of this plot to the complainant, the cause of action had arisen to the complainant on 25.11.1992 itself and latest by 25.12.1996. Even if the liberal view is adopted, the appeal was filed against auction which was dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 27.01.1995 (Ex.C4). Therefore, at the most, the cause of action had arisen to the complainant for seeking possession/compensation from that date onwards. Even if further liberal view is adopted, the Tehsildar had issued warrants of possession in favour of the complainant on 26.03.1996 and still possession was not delivered, therefore, at the most, cause of action had arisen to the complainant on 26.03.1996.
8. As per Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, the complaint was required to have been filed within a period of 2 years. This provision was duly considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
9. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the latest judgment reported as "Kandimalla Raghavaiah & Co. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and another, 2009 CTJ 951 (Supreme court) (CP)" as under : -
"11. Section 24A of the Act bars any fora set up under the Act, from admitting a complaint, unless the complaint is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. The provision expressly casts a duty on the commission, admitting a complaint, to dismiss a complaint unless the complainant satisfies the District Forum, the State Commission or National Commission, as the case may be, that the complainant had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within the period of two years from the date on which the cause of action had arisen. Consumer Complaint No.40 of 2008 4
12. Recently, in State Bank of India v. B.S. Agricultural Industries, 2009 CTJ 481 (SC) (CP) = JT 2009 (4) SC 191, this Court, while dealing with the same provision, has held :
8. It would be seen from the aforesaid provision that it is peremptory in nature and requires consumer forum to see before it admits the complaint that it has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action. The consumer forum, however, for the reasons to be recorded in writing may condone the delay in filing the complaint if sufficient cause is shown. The expression, 'shall not admit a complaint' occurring in Section 24A is sort of a legislative command to the consumer forum to examine on its own whether the complaint has been filed within limitation period prescribed thereunder. As a matter of law, the consumer forum must deal with the complaint on merits only if the complaint has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action and if beyond the said period, the sufficient cause has been shown and delay condoned for the reasons recorded in writing. In other words, it is the duty of the consumer forum to take notice of Section 24 A and give effect to it. If the complaint is barred by time and yet, the consumer forum decides the complaint on merits, the forum would be committing an Consumer Complaint No.40 of 2008 5 illegality and, therefore, the aggrieved party would be entitled to have such order set aside."
10. In view of the discussions held above, we find that the complaint having been filed on 14.08.2008 i.e. after about 12 years is barred by limitation.
11. Accordingly, the present complaint is dismissed as barred by limitation.
12. The arguments were heard in this case on 07.10.2009 and the order was reserved. Now, the order be communicated to the parties.
13. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(JUSTICE S.N.AGGARWAL) PRESIDENT (LT. COL. DARSHAN SINGH-RETD.) MEMBER (PIARE LAL GARG) MEMBER October 16, 2009.
Paritosh