National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Kehar Singh vs Administrator, Huda & Anr. on 23 July, 2010
OP 10/1998 NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 2051 OF 2010 [Against the order dated 27.01.2010 in Appeal No. 3010 of 2007 of the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula] Kehar Singh Son of Late Puran Singh Resident of House No. 587-P Sector-15, Part-I Gurgaon Vs. 1. Administrator Haryana Urban Development Authority Sector-14 Gurgaon 2. Estate Officer Haryana Urban Development Authority Sector-14 Gurgaon Petitioner/Complainant Respondents/Opp. Parties
Appearance :-
For the petitioner/complainant Mr. J.B. Mudgil, Advocate BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. S.K. NAIK, PRESIDING MEMBER Pronounced on : 23rd July, 2010 This revision petition has been filed by Mr. Kehar Singh, who was complainant before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon (District Forum for short), assailing the order dated 27th of January, 2010 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (State Commission for short). Vide the impugned order the State Commission has dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner/complainant on the ground of limitation as well as on merit.
Brief facts giving rise to the present revision petition are that the petitioner/complainant had applied for allotment of a residential plot in Sector-12A, Gurgaon, whereupon he was allotted plot no. 382-B in the said sector at Gurgaon. The petitioner/complainant alleges that despite his depositing Rs.75,786/- being the cost of the plot, the respondent/opposite parties did not offer him possession of the said plot but allotted an alternate plot bearing number 587-P in Sector-15, Gurgaon. The petitioner/complainant also deposited the differential cost of Rs.1,92,066/-, on the basis of which on 19th of October, 1995 he was delivered possession by the respondent/opposite parties. In the year 2001 the respondent/opposite parties issued a demand notice to the petitioner/complainant seeking some more money and he deposited a sum of Rs.3,52,463/- under protest and also filed a complaint before the District Forum praying for refund of the said amount with interest, compensation and cost of litigation.
Before the District Forum both the parties placed their respective cases. While the petitioner/complainant advanced the arguments as indicated above, the respondent/opposite parties stated that the possession of the earlier allotted plot could not be delivered since the petitioner/complainant did not accept the same and approached the Honble High Court praying for allotment of plot no. 587-P, Sector-15, Part-I, Gurgaon at the prevalent rate, which was allotted to him at the rate of Rs.635.62 ps. per sq. mt. and possession was delivered. The petitioner/complainant has willfully accepted the possession of plot no. 587-P and therefore there was no deficiency in service.
The District Forum after considering the rival submission vide its order dated 12th of June, 2007 disposed of the matter and directed the respondent/opposite parties to calculate the account of the complainant and refund the excess amount, if any, arrived at after calculation of the account with interest to him at the rate of interest which they charge on delayed payments from the date of deposit till actual payment.
Not satisfied with the order of District Forum, the petitioner/complainant approached the State Commission, who did not find any force in his appeal and dismissed the same on the ground of limitation as well as on merit.
Hence, this revision petition by the petitioner/complainant.
Since the challenge was to the order of the State Commission dismissing his appeal on ground of limitation as also on merit, learned counsel on the point of limitation has submitted that the reason given for the delay in filing the appeal in his condonation application provided sufficient cause, as firstly the counsel for the complainant never informed him about the decision of the complaint before the District Forum and subsequently he was admitted in Fortis Hospital, Mohali and angioplasty was conducted on him and the doctor had advised him bed rest for some days. In support of his contention, he has also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Katiji [(1987) 2 SCC 107].
On the merits of the case, learned counsel submits that the order of District Forum directing the opposite party to calculate the amount due to the complainant and find out if any excess amount has been charged from him and if so to refund the excess amount with interest, to say the least, is not a proper order.
According to learned counsel, the District Forum ought to have called for the exact statement of account from the respondent/opposite parties and decided the matter rather than leaving it in the hands of the respondent/opposite parties. Extending his argument further he has also referred to the order of this Commission in the case of Haryana Urban Development Authority Vs. R.P. Chawla rendered in Revision Petitions No. 547 & 548 of 1997 decided on 31st of August, 2001 and has submitted that the respondent/opposite parties were not entitled to charge anything more than the original price/rate of the plot.
Having considered the twin arguments of the learned counsel, this Commission is of the view that the revision petition merits dismissal in limine for the following reasons.
On the point of limitation, it may be stated that a period of 30 days for filing an appeal is provided under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In addition thereto, the petitioner/complainant has taken another 103 days to file the appeal before the State Commission.
The State Commission in its order after taking into consideration that even though a liberal approach is expected while dealing with the question of condonation of delay, had given the reason that law of limitation provided in the statute book cannot be given a go-bye in a casual manner. It has referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Mahant Bikram Das Chela Vs. Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab, Chandigarh & Others [1977 AIR 2221], wherein it has been held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act is a hard task-master and judicial interpretation has encased it within a narrow compass. It has further referred to the order of this Commission in the case of U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Vs. Brij Kishore Pandey & Anr. [2009 (3) CPC 595] and has held that the petitioner/complainant had failed to establish sufficient cause to condone the delay. Reliance now placed in his support to the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Katiji (supra), in view of this Commission will not help the petitioner/complainant. While the Honble Supreme Court in the said judgment has held that Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging any appeal late, the Honble Supreme Court in the case Mahant Bikram Das Chela Vs. Financial Commissioner (supra) referred to by the State Commission has held that the right which has accrued to a party by lapse of time ought not to be taken away easily and in view of the Apex Court a litigant who is not vigilant about his right must explain every days delay. In a very recent judgment on the subject of condonation of delay on consumer matters, the Honble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India Vs. B.S. Agriculture Industries (I) [(2009) 5 SCC 121] has held as under :-
Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (referred to as the Act hereafter) 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 the 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.
The section debars any fora set up under the Act, admitting a complaint unless the complaint is filed within two years from the date of which the cause of action has arisen. Neither the National Commission nor the State Commission had considered the preliminary objections raised by the appellant that the claim of the respondent was barred by time.
Therefore, the claim of the respondent on the basis of the allegations contained in the complaint was clearly barred by limitation as the two-year period prescribed by Section 24-A of the Act had expired much before the complaint was admitted by the State Commission. This finding is sufficient for allowing the appeal.
On its plain averments, the complaint is barred by time and ought to have been dismissed as such but curiously this aspect was not examined by any of the consumer fora although specific plea to this effect was taken by the Bank.
Since the complaint is barred by time and liable to be dismissed on that count, it would be unnecessary to examine the other grounds of challenge.
According to Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, a period of 30 days has been provided for the filing of an appeal against the order of the District Forum before the State Commission. Accordingly, the ratio of the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court rendered in the case referred to above would be squarely applicable to the case in hand.
Therefore, this Commission does not find anything wrong, illegal or irregular in the order passed by the State Commission.
On the second aspect of the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant, this Commission finds that the District Forum in its order has clearly stated that There is no dispute regarding the rate at which the Opposite Parties charged Complainant while allotting the alternate plot in exchange. It was so held because the petitioner complainant had himself sought allotment of plot No. 587-P, Sector-15 at the price prevalent at that time. The Fora below, therefore, had accepted the contention of the respondent/opposite parties that the petitioner/complainant willfully accepted the offer of plot with all the terms and conditions and the price of the same.
The reliance on the order of this Commission in the case of Haryana Urban Development Authority Vs. R.P. Chawla (supra) is misplaced and will not help the petitioner/complainant.
In view of the above, it is crystal clear that the State Commission has very correctly held that the direction of the District Forum to the respondent/opposite parties to revisit the statement of account of the petitioner/complainant and refund if any amount has been charged in excess is just, fair and proper. Thus, there being no illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the orders passed by the Fora below, the revision petition is dismissed with no order as to cost.
Sd/-
(S.K. NAIK) (PRESIDING MEMBER) Mukesh/