National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Vishakhapatnam Urban Development ... vs Dr. Kaparapu Satya Praveen Kumar on 17 May, 2017
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 1140 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 04/08/2016 in Appeal No. 436/2016 of the State Commission Andhra Pradesh) 1. VISHAKHAPATNAM URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (VUDA) REP. BY ITS VICE CHAIRMAN UDYOG BHAVAN COMPLEX, 8TH FLOOR, SIRIPURAM VISAKHAPATNAM-530003 ANDHRA PRADESH ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. DR. KAPARAPU SATYA PRAVEEN KUMAR S/O. SANJEEV RAO NAIDU, R/O. ADARSH NAGAR, OLD DIARY FARM, VISHAKHAPATNAM ANDHRA PRADESH ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.K. JAIN,PRESIDENT HON'BLE MRS. M. SHREESHA,MEMBER For the Petitioner : Ms. S. Usha Reddy, Advocate For the Respondent :
Dated : 17 May 2017 ORDER
1. By these Revision Petitions, Vishakhapatnam Urban Development Authority (for short "the Development Authority"), the sole Opposite Party in the Complaints, calls in question the legality and correctness of the two orders, both dated 04.08.2016, passed by the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Hyderabad (for short "the State Commission") in FAIA No. 151/2016 in/and FASR No. 436/2016 and FAIA No. 146/2016 in/and FASR No. 439/2016. By the impugned orders, the State Commission has dismissed the Appeals, preferred by the Development Authority, as barred by limitation, as there was a delay of 167 days in filing the same, for which, according to the State Commission, no sufficient cause was shown.
2. The Appeals had been preferred by the Development Authority against the orders dated 13.07.2015, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum - I, Vishakhapatnam (for short "the District Forum") in Complaint Cases No. 211 and 209 of 2012. By the said orders, while partly allowing the Complaints, preferred by the Respondents/Complainants herein, the District Forum had directed the Development Authority to pay to the Complainants sums of ₹3,62,440/- and ₹2,75,274/- respectively, within two months, with a default stipulation of paying interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the said order till payment. The District Forum had also awarded compensation of ₹5,000/- and litigation costs, quantified at ₹1,000/-, each in favour of the Complainants.
3. Since both the Complaints involve more or less similar facts & common issue and the Opposite Party, the Petitioner herein, is also same in both the matters and the Forums below have passed the orders therein on identical lines, though by different orders, these Revision Petitions, filed against the said orders, are being disposed of by this common order. However, for the sake of convenience, Revision Petition No. 1140 of 2017 is treated as the lead case and the facts referred to hereinafter are taken from the Complaint filed by the Complainant therein.
4. In order to acquire a house site, the Complainant had participated in the auction conducted by the Development Authority on 27.01.2011. In view of his bid @ ₹11,600/- per sq. yard, being the highest bidder for the plot in question, viz. Plot No. 584 situated in Ozone Valley Layout (Paradesipalem), admeasuring 502.55 sq. yards, on 28.01.2011 the Complainant was issued the allotment order. He was required to pay the cost of the plot/site in installments, as specified in the allotment order, by obtaining a loan from the Bank, for which the Development Authority was to issue No Objection Certificate (NOC) and other documents. On payment of 10% of the cost of the plot, i.e. ₹5,82,958/-, on 28.01.2011 itself, the Complainant was to pay the balance sale consideration in three installments. For the said purpose, he approached the State Bank of India, Jagadamba Branch, Vishakhapatnam, for a loan of ₹48.00 Lakhs. The Bank asked for certain documents, including NOC, allotment order, Tripartite Agreement etc. Despite requests by the Complainant in this regard, all the requisite documents were not issued by the Development Authority, resulting in return of the loan application by the Bank. While this was so, on 15.10.2011 the Development Authority raised a demand of ₹3,62,440/- against the Complainant towards penal interest. Vide his letters dated 08.06.2011 and 29.10.2011, the Complainant approached the Development Authority against the said demand, pleading that because of non-issuance of the requisite documents by it, he could not get loan from the bank to pay the installments on time, for which the Development Authority was responsible and, hence, he was not liable to pay penal interest. Subsequently, by arranging the amount from other sources on higher rate of interest, the Complainant made the balance payment to the Development Authority under protest. In the said background, afore-noted Complaint came to be filed before the District Forum, wherein the Complainant had prayed for a direction to the Development Authority to refund to him a sum of ₹3,62,440/-, collected by it as penal interest, besides ₹1,00,000/- as damages for the mental agony.
5. Upon notice, the Development Authority contested the Complaints by filing its Written Version.
6. On appreciation of the evidence adduced before it, the District Forum concluded that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Development Authority in not supplying the requisite documents to the Complainant, on account of which the Complainant could not take the loan and was forced to pay penal interest; and, hence, the Complainant was entitled for the refund of penal interest collected from him. Consequently, while partly allowing the Complaints, the District Forum issued the aforesaid directions to the Development Authority.
7. Aggrieved, the Development Authority carried the matter further in Appeals to the State Commission, with a delay of 167 days. As noted above, the said delay was not explained by the Development Authority to the satisfaction of the State Commission and, hence, vide the orders impugned in these Revision Petitions, the State Commission has dismissed the Appeals as barred by limitation.
8. Hence, the present Revision Petitions.
9. It is pointed out by the Office that these Revision Petitions are also barred by limitation, inasmuch as there is a delay of 95 days in filing the same. Identical Applications, praying for condonation of the said delay, have been filed along with the Revision Petitions. In paragraph - 5 of the said Applications, the Development Authority has furnished the following explanation:
"It is most respectfully submitted that the impugned order was passed by the Hon'ble State Commission on 04.08.2016 dismissing the application for condonation of delay in filing the Appeal, consequently appeal also dismissed. It is submitted that after receiving the order orally took legal opinion and thereafter the matter was placed before the competent Authority. The competent authority tendered opinion in favour of filing Revision Petition before this Hon'ble Court. Thereafter, the legal Department contacted the advocate at Delhi and sent the documents to counsel's email address. The Counsel informed to the department that the documents sent through e-mail are not legible for preparation of Revision Petition and requested the department to send the documents through courier service. After receiving the documents, the counsel prepared the Revision Petition and sent the draft. After vetting the same the department sent back the Revision Petition for filing before this Hon'ble Court."
10. We have heard learned Counsel on the question of delay. In our view, the Development Authority has failed to make out any sufficient cause for condonation of the said inordinate delay and, hence, the Revision Petitions deserve to be dismissed as barred by limitation.
11. A perusal of the impugned orders would show that certified copy of the same had been issued to the Development Authority on 25.10.2016. Bearing in mind the limited period of 90 days, as provided under Regulation 14 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005, more so when the Development Authority's Appeals had been dismissed by the State Commission as barred by limitation and resultantly the orders passed by the District Forum, partly allowing the Complaints, stood affirmed, the Development Authority was expected to file the Petitions within the period of limitation. Its Appeals having been dismissed by the State Commission on the ground of limitation, it should have been vigilant and ought to have ensured that carelessness on its part in not filing the Appeals in the State Commission is not perpetuated even in approaching the higher forum. But that was not to be because of sheer careless on the part of its functionaries. The said delay is sought to be explained on the specious pleas that after receiving the order, orally, legal opinion was sought; the matter was placed before the Competent Authority, which tendered its opinion for filing the Revision Petitions; thereafter the Legal Department contacted the Advocate, who, after receiving the requisite documents, sent the draft Petitions to the Development Authority; and, after vetting, the Department again sent the Petitions for filing before this Commission. However, the explanation is conspicuously silent about the dates, indicating the movement of the file from 'table to table'. In the absence of these details, it can safely be inferred that the Development Authority has nothing to say for the delay caused in filing of the present Petitions and whatever has been stated in the Applications, is an attempt to somehow protract the matter. The departmental lethargy gets compounded by the fact that even before the State Commission, the Appeals were filed by the Development Authority with a delay of 167 days, for condonation of which the Development Authority failed to make out a sufficient cause, leaving no option with the State Commission but to dismiss the Appeals.
12. The question of delay by the Government Departments in prosecuting the cases has been engaging the attention of the Courts. In Postmaster General and Ors. V. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. [(2012) 3 SCC 563], the Supreme Court has been pleased to observe as under :
"28. Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody, including the Government.
29. In our view, it is right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bona fide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red tape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for the government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few." (Emphasis supplied)
13. In the aforesaid factual scenario, we are of the opinion that the Development Authority has failed to make out a sufficient cause for condonation of delay of 95 days in filing of the present Petitions, which, for the reasons given above, we are not inclined to condone.
14. Consequently, both the Petitions are dismissed in limine on the short ground of limitation.
......................J D.K. JAIN PRESIDENT ...................... M. SHREESHA MEMBER