State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Delhi Development Authority vs Swaran Chadha on 8 March, 2011
IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Decision : 8.3.2011 First Appeal 08/1083 (Arising out of the order dated 13.5.2008 passed by the District Forum-II, C-22 & 23, Institutional Area, Behind Qutab Hotel, New Delhi in complaint case no 599/2006) Delhi Development Authority Through its Vice-Chairman Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi Deputy Director (MIG) H Delhi Development Authority Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi .........Appellant VS Mrs. Swaran Chadha w/o Late Sh. Kidar Nath Chadha 8634, Hillside, Manor Drive Springfield, VA22152, USA .. Respondent CORAM Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi, President Salma Noor, Member
1. Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
SALMA NOOR, MEMBER
1. Heard at admission stage
2. This appeal has been filed before this Commission on 8.7.2008 with a delay of 174 days by the Appellant Delhi Development Authority against the order dated 13.5.2008 passed by Ld. Consumer Forum-II, Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23 Institutional Area, Behind Qutab Hotel, New Delhi in case No.599/2006 by which the appellant/respondent is directed to allot a flat to the respondent/complainant by entering her name in the next draw of lot to be held, after transferring registration of her Late husband in her name.
3. Along with the appeal an application for condonation of delay u/s 5 of the Limitation Act has also been filed by the appellant.
4. We have heard Ms. Girija Wadhwa, Counsel for the appellant and Sh. Yakesh Anand, Counsel for the respondent on delay condonation application.
5. The reason given for the delay of 174 days is explained in para 2 of the application which reads as follows:-
That the copy of the order was certified on 15.5.2008 and the same was received by the appellants counsel on 15.5.2008 and he sent the copy of the order to the appellants office on 23.5.2008. As this judgment pertained to the housing development it was sent to the department.
The Director (Housing) after receiving the same asked the dealing hand to examine the order in case the same need to be challenged. The dealing hand after opining sent the file to Senior Law Officer who endorsed the opinion of the dealing hand. The file was sent to the Commissioner. The matter required few queries the same were placed on record. The matter was again examined. The decision to file an appeal was taken on 29.10.2008. Thereafter the file was sent to the Panel Lawyer after observing all the formalities, on 7.11.2008 who prepared the appeal and after having the same signed from the concerned officials and got the FDR prepared in favour of Registrar of SCDRC was filed.
6. We are not impressed at all with the above reasons/ground set up for the condonation of delay. It is a settled legal position that any petitioner who seeks indulgence in the matter of condonation of delay must explain the delay on day to-day basis.
The reason given for this delay is on account of some departmental and legal formalities and procedures are not sufficient enough for condonation of delay of 174 days. After expiry of the period of limitation, an explanation for delay has to be rational, reasonable and realistic and to be acceptable.
Delay in initial procedure is no explanation provided in the definition given u/s 15 of the Consumer Protection Act which provides limitations. The reason given, therefore, is illegal, insufficient and consequently unacceptable.
7. The Honble Supreme Court in a judgment reported as State Bank of India Vs B.S. Agricultural Industries (I), II (2009) CPJ 29 (SC)-II (2009) SLT793=2009 CTJ 481 [Supreme Court] (CP) considered the provisions of limitation as contained in section 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Although the question before the Honble Supreme Court was only the delay in filing the complaint in the first instance beyond the period of two years as laid down in the statutory provisions but the Honble Supreme Court was pleased to observe as under :-
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 24 A is sort of legislative command to the consumer forum to examine on its own whether the complaint has been filed within limitation period prescribed there under. 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 illegality and, therefore, the aggrieved party would be entitled to have such order set aside.
8. In the present case the appeal was required to be filed within a period of thirty days from the receiving of the order but the appeal was filed after 174 days of passing the limitation period. Thus the application for condonation of delay is hopelessly barred by limitation, accordingly dismissed.
9. Since the application for condonation of delay is dismissed, the appeal also stands dismissed as barred by limitation at the admission stage.
10. FDR, if any, deposited by the appellant be released after completing due formalities.
11. Copy of this order be provided to the parties free of cost and a copy of this order be also sent to concerned District Forum and thereafter, file be consigned to record room.
(Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi) President (Salma Noor) Member Arya