State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
1.The Estate Officer, Huda, ... vs Sat Pal Sharma S/O Sh. Sohan Lal Sharma ... on 1 February, 2012
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA First Appeal No.220 of 2008 Date of Institution: 22.01.2008 Date of Decision: 01.02.2012 1. The Estate Officer, HUDA, Kurukshetra. 2. The Chief Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula. Appellants (Ops) Versus Sat Pal Sharma s/o Sh. Sohan Lal Sharma R/o House No.995, Sector-17, Urban Estate, Jagadhri Tehsil Jagadhri District Yamuna Nagar. Respondent (Complainant) BEFORE: Honble Mr. Justice R.S. Madan, President. Dr. Rekha Sharma, Member. For the Parties: Shri A.K. Kansal, Advocate for appellants. Shri Ravi Kant, Advocate for respondent. O R D E R
Justice R.S. Madan, President:
Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 03.07.2007 passed by District Consumer Forum, Kurukshetra whereby complaint filed by the complainant (respondent herein) was accepted by granting following relief:-
..we accept the complaint and quash the demand of Rs.89300/- and direct Ops to pay interest 2 9% per annum from 2.3.89 to 6.6.1995 on the amount deposited with Op. We further direct the Ops to charge 10% per annum simple interest on the delayed payment. The possession was offered vide letter dated 7.6.1995 as extension fee can be charged after two year from the offer of possession. Therefore, we further direct the Ops to charge extension fee from 7.6.1997 onward. Fresh statement of account shall be prepared according to which if any amount found due towards complainant that will be charged after giving proper notice and if any amount of complainant remains in excess deposited with Ops that will be refunded. This order will be complied within a period of 30 days from the date of preparation of copy of this order, failing which the penal action U/S 27 of Consumer Protection Act will be taken.
Undisputed facts of the present case are that the complainant was allotted plot No.146 Sector-5, Urban Estate, Kurukshetra vide allotment letter dated 02.03.1987. Possession of the plot was offered to the complainant on 7.6.1995. The grievance of the complainant before the District Forum was that the possession of the plot was never offered to him and for that reason the opposite parties illegally charged Rs.89,300/- on 6.12.2006 out of which Rs.77,400/- was charged as extension fee Rs.8820/- as enhancement charges and Rs.3080/- for increased area of the plot. Complainant further alleged that charging of extension fee without offering of possession was illegal.
Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and resisted complainants claim. It was stated that the complainant had deposited the enhancement amount of the price with the delay of 336 days. Notice to the complainant for paying the enhanced price of the plot was given but despite that the enhanced price was deposited on 11.3.1991 i.e. after 336 days. Thus, the interest was calculated and an amount of Rs.1863/- remained due towards the complainant and the said balance amount was not deposited and the same increased to the extent of Rs.8820/- on dated 11.01.2007. Besides this a notice was given to the complainant to pay the price of the enhanced area of the plot to the tune of Rs.5825/- on dated 02.08.1995 and the said amount was also deposited with a delay of 246 days. The complainant had deposited Rs.5682/- and a sum of Rs.994/- remained due including the interest towards the increased area. Thus, the total due amount towards the complainant was Rs.89,300/- which was liable to be paid by the complainant. It was prayed that the complaint merited dismissal.
District Consumer Forum accepted complaint and issued direction to the opposite parties as noticed in the opening para of this order. Hence this appeal.
There is delay of 158 days in filing of the instant appeal the condonation of which has been sought by moving an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The application is supported with an affidavit of the Estate Officer, HUDA, Kurukshetra.
While dealing with the application for condonation of delay, it is not disputed that the delay cannot be condoned on the ground of equity and generosity, but at the same time it is to be taken into consideration that in case of any legal infirmity is committed by the District Consumer Forum while passing the impugned order which is apparent on record, the same cannot be allowed to continue as it would amount to no order in the eyes of law. Reference is made to the observation made by the Honble Supreme wherein it has been held that when the substantial justice and technical approach are pitted against each other, the former has to be performed. It has further been held that the words Sufficient Cause have to be interpreted to advance the cause of justice. The Honble Apex Court in case cited as State of Nagaland Vs. Lipok A.O. and others, 2005(3) SCC 752 has held as under:-
11.What constitutes sufficient cause cannot be held down by hard and fast rules. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shanti Misra (1975)(2) SCC (840) this Court held that discretion given by Section 5 should not be defined or crystallized so as to convert a discretionary matter into a rigid rule of law. The expression sufficient cause should receive a liberal construction. In Brij Inder Singh Vs. Kanshi Ram (ILR) (1918) 45 Cal.
94 (PC) it was observed that true guide for a court to exercise the discretion under Section 5 is whether the appellant acted with reasonable diligence in prosecuting the appeal. In Shakuntala Devi Jain Vs. Kuntal Kumari (AIR 1969 SC 575) a Bench of three-Judges had held that unless want of bona fides of such inaction or negligence as would deprive a party of the protection of Section 5 is proved, the application must not be thrown out or any delay cannot be refused to be condoned.
In the instant case the District Consumer Forum has passed the impugned order without appreciating the facts of the case and therefore, we think it a fit case to condone the delay. Hence, the delay of 158 days in filing of the present appeal is condoned.
On behalf of the appellants it has been argued that the District Forum wrongly held that possession should have been offered within a period of two years of allotment whereas in the instant case the possession was offered to the complainant and there was no fixed period of offered possession. It has further been argued that the complainant is legally bound to pay the enhanced period of the plot as well as the interest thereupon as per HUDA policy.
The contention raised on behalf of the appellants is attractive under the facts and circumstances of the case. As per terms and conditions of the allotment letter, the complainant is bound to pay the price of the plot including the enhanced price as well as the interest on the delayed instalments. District Forum has failed to appreciate the true facts of the case and as such the impugned order cannot be allowed to sustain.
Accordingly, this appeal is accepted, impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.
Announced: Justice R.S. Madan 01.02.2012 President Dr. Rekha Sharma Member