State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sarabjit Singh vs Estate Officer Puda on 10 September, 2015
2nd Additional Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. 1243 of 2013
Date of institution: 13.11.2013
Date of Decision: 10.9.2015
Sarabjit Singh S/o Late Sh. Sulakhan Singh Bhatti, R/o H. No. 645, Urban
Estate, Dugri Road, Ludhiana.
Appellant/Complainant
Versus
1. The Estate Officer, Punjab Urban Development Authority, having
office at PUDA Complex, Near Rajguru Nagar, Ferozepur Road,
Ludhiana.
2. C.A. C/o Punjab Urban Development Authority, having office at
PUDA Complex, Near Rajguru Nagar, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana.
3. A.C.A. C/o Punjab Urban Development Authority, having office at
PUDA Complex, Near Rajguru Nagar, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana
Respondents/OPs
First Appeal against the order dated 4.10.2013
passed by the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Ludhiana.
Quorum:-
Shri Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member
Mrs. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member
First Appeal No. 1243 of 2013 2
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. Sandeep Chopra, Advocate
For the respondents : Mrs. Geeta Sharma, Advocate
Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member
ORDER
The appellant/complainant (hereinafter referred as "the complainant") has filed the present appeal against the order dated 4.10.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana (hereinafter referred as the District Forum) in consumer complaint No.120 dated 5.2.2013 vide which the complaint filed by the complainant was dismissed being barred by limitation.
2. A consumer complaint was filed by the complainant under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short 'the Act') against the respondents/OPs(hereinafter referred as OPs) on the averments that he applied for a plot of 200 sq. yards on the basis of publication given by Ops in the newspapers vide form No. 5956 on 10.7.1981 and enclosed a draft of Rs. 1700/- dated 9.7.1981 drawn favour of in Hindustan Commercial Bank Limited, Ludhiana, its acknowledgement was issued by the Op vide receipt No. 1026 dated 15.7.1981. As per the advertisement, the allotment was to be made on "first come first serve basis" as a number of flats were limited and those, who were not allotted plots can take the refund of the amount deposited by them. Then the OPs gave another publication vide which a sum of Rs. 2300/- was more demanded, which was deposited by the complainant vide draft No. 115489 dated 6.9.1983. The complainant had been continuously inquiring from the OPs about the status of his First Appeal No. 1243 of 2013 3 allotment regularly and finally he issued a letter dated 4.11.2010 and thereafter number of reminders were issued but Ops never replied to the complainant. Then he applied for detailed information under the RTI vide IPO No. 08F964029 dated 27.7.2012 of the OP provided information that the amount of his cheque was sent to the complainant on 24.11.1997 whereas the said cheque was never received by the complainant and that amount was never withdrew by the complainant. He also demanded the details of the registered A.D. but those were not given. Then he issued a legal notice dated 21.11.2012 but the Ops never replied to the legal notice, which amounted to deficiency in services on the part of the OPs. Hence, the complaint with a direction to the OPs to allot the plot to the complainant and also pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation on account of harassment and Rs. 17,000/- as litigation expenses.
3. The complaint was accompanied with an application for condonation of delay, if any, in filing the complaint.
4. The complaint was contested by the OP, who gave reply to the application for condonation of delay and took the preliminary objections that the applicant has no locus-standi to file this application and that the complaint was barred under Section 24A and no sufficient ground has been made out to condone the delay. Similar plea was taken on merits.
5. After going through the averments of the parties, the learned District Forum vide impugned order did not find any merit in the application to condone and consequently, the complaint was dismissed by the District Forum.
First Appeal No. 1243 of 2013 4
6. Aggrieved with the order passed by the learned District Forum, the appellant/complainant has filed the present appeal.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
8. It has been argued by the counsel for the appellant/complainant that the learned District Forum has not properly appreciated the plea of limitation. The application was filed by the complainant alongwith the complaint to condone the delay, if any, in filing the complaint but actually the complaint was within limitation and was not barred by limitation. After making the various representations, the OPs had paid a cheque of Rs. 4,000/- on 7.1.2013 drawn on ICICI Bank and the complaint was filed on 5.2.2013. The cause of action had accrued to the complainant when he moved the application, deposited additional amount and on the day he received the payment. The plea of the counsel for the respondents/OPs is that the amount was sent to the complainant in the year 1997 as per the RTI information received by the complainant vide cheque No. 1732940 dated 24.11.1997 but the plea of the complainant is that the said cheque was never received by the complainant, therefore, it was for the OPs to prove how this cheque was sent to the complainant. The OP has not placed on the record any letter vide which this cheque was sent and mode of sending the cheque. It has also been admitted by the counsel for the respondents that the amount was not withdrawn from the account of the Ops that is why a fresh cheque was issued in favour of the complainant. In case the complainant was not eligible for the allotment of plot atleast, he was entitled for the refund of the amount deposited by him and till First Appeal No. 1243 of 2013 5 the amount is refunded, the complainant will have a recurring cause of action, therefore, it is not justified that the application, which was submitted in the year 1981 and other payment was deposited in the year 1983 or that the applicant remained silent upto 2013 when he filed the present complaint. In case it was a recurring cause of action then it cannot be said that the complaint filed by the complainant was barred by limitation. The learned District Forum simply dismissed the application to condone the delay, if any, in filing the complaint on the term that sufficient ground was not disclosed. Whereas the District Forum was first required to return the findings whether the complaint filed by the complainant is barred by limitation and then they were required to consider the application whether any sufficient ground to condone the delay of limitation is made out. In case the complaint itself is within the limitation then question of any sufficient ground to condone the delay does not arise, therefore, we are of the opinion that the findings so recorded by the learned District Forum to dismiss the application on the ground of limitation are erroneous and are liable to be set-aside.
9. In view of the above, we accept the appeal. It is observed that the complaint filed by the complainant is within limitation. The complaint is remanded back to the District Forum to decide the same on merits.
10. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the District Forum, Ludhiana on 15.10.2015. Copy of the order alongwith record of the District Forum be sent back forthwith. First Appeal No. 1243 of 2013 6
11. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 27.8.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.
12. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(Gurcharan Singh Saran)
Presiding Judicial Member
September 10, 2015. (Surinder Pal Kaur)
as Member