State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Delhi Development Authority vs Sheela Aggarwal on 1 September, 2010
IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI
IN
THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI
(Appeal
against the order dated 16.11.2009 passed by District Forum-II in complaint
case no 359/2009 )
Date
of Decision : 01.09.2010
Appeal
No. FA-10/276
Delhi Development Authority
Through
its Director (Housing-II)
Vikas Sadan, INA,
New Delhi
.. Appellants/OP.
VS
Smt. Sheela Aggarwal,
s/o Sh. Ram Prakash Aggarwal,
r/o
123, Pocket-I,
Jasola Vihar, New Delhi-25.
..Respondents/Complainant.
CORAM
Justice B.A. Zaidi,
President
M.L. Sahni,
Member
1. Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
M.L. Sahni, Member(Judicial)
1. DDA has filed this appeal against the order dated 16.11.2009 passed in Complaint Case No. 359/2009 by the District Forum II, directing them to allot and issue demand-cum-allotment letter of EHS Cat-I Flat of Narela Housing Scheme-2004 on the prevalent price i.e. date of issue of the said letter, within 30 days of the passing of impugned order.
2. The appeal is accompanied by an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
3. Before hearing on admission of the appeal on merits, we have thought it expedient to dispose off the application for delay because, admittedly there is 60 days delay in preferring the present appeal.
4. We have, therefore, heard the Ld. Counsel for the DDA on their application praying for condonation of delay stating the reasons as follows :-
That copy of the impugned order was received on 29.12.2009 by the department and it took sometime in completing the departmental procedure to take decision for preferring the appeal; that, the file was sent to the counsel for preparing an appeal on 26.02.2010 . The Vakalatnama was signed on 6.3.2010 and the file was received on 6.3.2010 for preparing the appeal ;
that appeal was prepared and sent on 16.3.2010 for verification and signing of affidavit and procuring an FDR. The FDR was applied for on 18.3.2010 and received on 26.3.2010. In the said process a delay of 60 days have occurred in filing the appeal.
5. The appeal in this case has been filed on 1.9.2010, while order impugned by the Appellant is dated 16.11.2009.
6. As per section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, appeal could have been preferred within 30 days of the date of order i.e. it should have been filed by 15.12.2009, whereas the present appeal is preferred only on 01.09.2010, thus there is delay of more than eight months i.e. 240 days. Proviso to this section, no doubts, empowers this Commission for condoning the delay, if the Aggrieved person shows to the satisfaction of the Commission that there was sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within prescribed period of limitation.
7. However, even if it is assumed that the OP/Appellant received the copy of the order dated 16.11.2009 only on 29.12.2009 as stated in the application, appeal should have been preferred on 28.01.2010, whereas the Appellant did so only after 214 days of the receipt of the impugned order.
8. In a recent case of the Appellants FA-No. 105 of 2009 decided by Honble National Commission on 31.08.2010, wherein delay involved was for 205 days, their appeal against order dated 4.7.2008 of this Commission, was dismissed with the observation:
It is for the Administrative Head of the DDA (or, his delegate/s) to look into matters which pertain to its core functions, fix responsibility for undue delays, take punitive action in appropriate cases and , most important, introduce systemic changes to minimize, if not eliminate altogether , such delays because these delays adversely affect the interests of thousands of citizens who come to DDA for purposes relating to a basic human need like housing. These delays also breed corruption and bring disrepute to the Authority. This Commission (or , any other Consumer Forum) comes into the picture only when either an affected citizen or the DDA itself seeks redressal in a specific matter. However, even in this limited role, we have come across so many cases where the DDA has unconscionably delayed not only the rederessal of citizens /allottees grievances but also legal action where its own interests, as an institution functioning with public funds, are involved. This is a case in the latter category. As the DDAs own delay analysis in this case and the so-called action pursuant to our directions show, the senior management of the DDA does not appear to be interested in finding a lasting solution nor in taking to task the persons who are responsible for perpetuating such delays. It is a sheer travesty of the process of a fact-finding enquiry that the DDA has sought to bury the matter by holding some junior functionary like an Assistant responsible for the delay in filing this appeal and letting him off with a mere warning even by DDAs own finding, the said Assistant was responsible for a delay of 2 months out of 6 plus. The lackadaisical attitude of somehow getting over with the directions to set its own house in order reflects poorly on the DDAs senior management and is a cause for serious concern for the public at large. The worst that can happen to a public authority like the DDA, is to pretend that all is well when the rest of the world knows and thinks otherwise. We hope our observations will spur the DDA management to some meaningful systemic action to curb delays in areas which constitute its basic functions though they may not be as glamorous or eye-catching as the large, high-visibility projects which are displayed on its website. Incidentally, it appears that despite instructions of the Government of India, the DDAs website does not display a specific Citizens Charter.
9. The reasons given in the present appeal by the Appellant in preferring the appeal after limitation by no stretch of reasoning are better than as were stated in the above referred to case.
10. In these facts and circumstances of the case, we see no just and sufficient cause shown to our satisfaction for condoning the delay. Hence, the request for condoning the delay is turned down and the application for the purpose moved by the appellant is rejected.
11. Consequently, the appeal is liable to be dismissed in limine.
12. The appeal is accordingly dismissed .
13. FDR, if any , deposited by the appellant be released after completing due formalities.
14. Copy of order be provided to the parties free of cost and one copy be sent to the concerned District Forum and thereafter file be consigned to record room.
(Justice B.A. Zaidi) President (M.L. Sahni) Member sk