National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Lalit vs Sunil Jadhav & Anr. on 3 March, 2014
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
REVISION PETITION NO. 767 OF 2014
(From the order dated 03.05.2013 in Appeal No. 2072/2008 of the
State
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madhya Pradesh)
Lalit,
S/o. Sh. Ghanshyam
R/o. Sadari Road, Baghana
District Neemuch, Madhya Pradesh . Petitioner
Versus
1.
Dr. Sunil Jadhav, S/o. Sh. Harihar Rao Jadhav
R/o.
36, Shikshak Colony
Neemuch,
Madhya Pradesh
2.
Chief Municipal Corporation Officer
Municipal
Corporation Council
Neemuch,
Madhya Pradesh
Respondents
Respondents
BEFORE:
HON'BLE
MR. JUSTICE J.M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner : Mr.
Deepak Thukral,
PRONOUNCED ON _3rd MARCH, 2014
ORDER
JUSTICE J.M. MALIK
1. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner. There is a delay of 170 days in filing the revision petition. The Petitioner has explained the delay in para 2 of the application moved for condonation of delay, which is reproduced, as follows:-
2. That there is a delay of 153 days in filing the aforesaid revision petition. The reason of delay is being that the counsel of the petitioner Shri Parag Kale, Advocate did not inform the petitioner about passing of impugned order dated 03.05.2013, whereby the appeal of the respondent No.2 was dismissed and it was only on the enquiry of the petitioner No.1 in the second week of August, 2013, that the counsel informed the petitioner about passing of impugned order. Thereafter, the petitioner collected the brief from Shri Parag Kale, Advocate and engaged the present counsel and handed over the brief to him on 31.08.2013, for filing the revision petition. But unfortunately, the car of the counsel was stolen on 04.09.2013 from the District Court at Faridabad and consequently, the counsel lost many files which were kept in the dikki of the said car, including the file of the present matter. The counsel, accordingly, informed the petitioner regarding loss of file on 12.09.2013. Thereafter, the petitioner took some time to collect the entire documents and orders from District Forum and State Commission and he again handed over the brief of the present matter to the counsel on 12.11.2013. The counsel then drafted the revision petition and sent it to the petitioner at Neemuch (Madhya Pradesh) for vetting and signature. The petitioner, after vetting, returned the matter to the counsel on 10.12.2013. Thereafter, the counsel got the entire documents and orders translated into English because all the documents and orders were in Hindi Language and got the translation of the matter on 16.01.2014 and is filing the same today.
2. As a matter of fact, there is a delay of 170 days as per the report submitted by the Registry. There is huge delay in filing the present revision petition and day-to-day delay has not been explained. There is no plea or evidence that the petitioner had visited the office of his counsel, Sh. Parag Kale to post himself about the next date of hearing. The car of the Advocate was stolen on 04.08.2013, but he sent the information on 12.09.2013. The revision petition was filed on 27.01.2014, knowing well that the case was going to be barred by limitation. The file can be reconstructed, within a week. The duty of the Advocate is to inspect the record and he can file even true copies of the record, for the time being. Everyday, the Advocates pray for permission to file the certified copies after some period. That request is always allowed. There is no cogent or plausible reason which may prove the case of the petitioner.
3. The law has a crystalline clarity. The following authorities neatly dovetail this view. (1) Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) (2) R.B.Ramlingam Vs. R.B.Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) CLT 188 (SC) (3) Ram Lal & Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 SC 361 (4) Bikram Dass Vs. Financial Commissioner and others, AIR, 1977 SC 1221.
4. In Banshi Vs. Lakshmi Narain 1993 (1) R.L.R. 68, it was held that reason for delay was sought to be explained on the ground that the counsel did not inform the appellant in time, was not accepted since it was primarily the duty of the party himself to have gone to lawyers office and enquired about the case. The statute also prescribes a time bound programme regarding the deposit to be made.
5. Similar view was taken in two other cases, reported in Jaswant Singh Vs. Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies 2000 (3) Punj. L.R. 83 and Bhandari Dass Vs. Sushila, 1997 (2) Raj LW 845.
6. It is well settled that Qui facit per alium facit per se. Negligence of a litigants agent is negligence of the litigant himself and is not sufficient cause for condoning delay. See M/s. Chawala & Co.
Vs. Felicity Rodrigues, 1971 ACJ 92.
7. The case is clearly barred by time.
8. Now, let us turn to the merits of this case. The complaint was filed by one, Dr.Sunil Jadhav, against Chief Municipal Corporation Officer. The case was decreed in favour of Dr.Sunil Jadhav and the Corporation was directed to allot land No.37 under Scheme No.30 in the name of the complainant and the land was to be registered in the name of the complainant, Dr.Sunil Jadhav, after receipt of the balance premium amount of Rs.3,20,771/- and lease rent amount of Rs.1,603/- from the date of allotment, till 31.03.2007.
9. Aggrieved by this order, the Municipal Corporation Officer, Madhya Pradesh, preferred an appeal before the State Commission. The petitioner, Sh.Lalit, moved an application for impleadment as a party because he claimed that he was the owner of the said land. However, the order of the District Forum discussed his case as well in its judgment. Paras 11, 12 & 13 of the said order reads as follows:-
11. The complainant had given his offer @ Rs.250.50 per sq.ft. and had submitted the offer of Rs.2,45,000/- along with the tender, but the opposite party allotted the land @ Rs.196 per sq.ft., to Lalit, S/o Ghanshyam Dass, by not allotting the land to the complainant despite of said tender and when the complainant took action in this regard with the opposite party, then the opposite party gave an order for cancellation of allotment of land No.37 to Lalit, S/o. Ghanshaym Dass vide letter No. 13 dated 02.01.2008, along with the Collectors order No.82/RTC/07dated 25.10.2007 and resolution of special meeting of council No.118 dated 23.11.2007. It is clear from this that the complainant had submitted the tender with the opposite party @ Rs.250.50 per sq.ft. Despite of this, Lalit, S/o Ghanshyam Dass was allotted the land No.37 @ Rs.196 per sq.ft., without participating in this tender and by doing this, the opposite party, besides the rendering of deficient service was negligent in his duties.
12. When the complainant had submitted the tender for land @ Rs.250.50 per sq.ft., but after that the allotment of land illegally to any other person @ Rs.196 per sq.ft., shows the corruption, besides the negligence in duties by the opposite party and the opposite party had also attempted to cause financial loss to the institution of public interest and no information in respect of acceptance or rejection of his application for land was given to a person of good intention who had given offer to provide profit to the institution as per rule and he was devoid of right information despite of repeated application given by him.
13. The opposite party had informed to the complainant through letter dated 29.11.2007 that because of not receiving the note sheet after opening the tender the information regarding acceptance or rejection of tender could not be given. If the opposite party had allotted the land to Lalit, S/o. Ghanshyam Dass, without tender, then the opposite party had definitely managed to loss the tender file pertaining to complainant on the fear of exposing of manipulation and irregularity done by the opposite party. This type of activity shows the bad intention of opposite party and it apparently seems that the opposite party, intentionally, with an objective to gain other profits, wanted to keep the complainant, devoid of land.
10. The State Commission also mentioned this fact, in para 6 of its order, as under :-
On examining the matter, it is found that the tender submitted by the respondent No.1/ complainant, was on the higher side and was only the tender and by not accepting that, the appellant has rendered deficient services and despite of making allotment of said land to other person, for which, the respondent No.1 had submitted the tender, which was cancelled by the appellant by order dated 27.11.2007, the intimation of which, was sent to the Collector, Neemuch, through letter dated 01.04.2008, it appears that the said land can yet be allotted to the respondent.
11. The tender application, moved by the petitioner was rightly dismissed by the State Commission. Moreover, this is a case of dispute between two independent persons, it can be decided only by the Civil Court. The revision petition is devoid of merit and the same is dismissed at the time of its admission.
....J (J.M. MALIK) PRESIDING MEMBER dd