State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Kuldip Singh Gangawala vs Punjab Urban Development Authority on 2 June, 2011
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
S.C.O. NO. 3009-10, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.55 of 2006
Date of institution : 16.1.2006
Date of decision : 02.6.2011
Kuldip singh Gangawala son of S. Karam Singh, resident of House No.2520,
Sector 35-C, Chandigarh.
.......Appellant
Versus
1. Punjab Urban Development Authority, SAS Nagar, Mohali, District Ropar
through its Estate Officer.
2. Estate Officer, Punjab Urban Development Authority, SAS Nagar, Mohali,
District Ropar.
......Respondents
First Appeal against the order dated 1.12.2005 of
the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Ropar.
Before :-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.N. Aggarwal President.
Mrs. Amarpreet Sharma, Member.
Mr. B.S. Sekhon, Member.
Present :-
For the appellant : Shri Suresh Singla, Advocate. For the respondents : Shri Balwinder Singh, Advocate. JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL, PRESIDENT:
Version of the appellant:
The appellant had applied to the respondents for the allotment of a plot measuring 500 sq. yards in SAS Nagar, Mohali. He had also deposited an amount of Rs.925/- against receipt dated 11.8.1969. He was not allotted any plot nor he had received any communication from the respondents.
2. It was further pleaded that in the year 1994 the respondents again demanded an amount of Rs.59,025/- from the appellant. It was deposited with the First Appeal No.55 of 2006. 2 respondents against receipt dated 20.6.1994. The respondents again demanded an affidavit from the appellant on 22.6.1994. It was accordingly given to the effect that he did not own any residential plot or house in Union Territory of Chandigarh or in any Urban Estate of Punjab.
3. The appellant again received telegram from the respondents on 7.7.1995 asking him to appear in their office. The appellant visited the office of the respondents accordingly and gave the written document on 11.7.1995. The appellant again wrote to the respondents on 9.8.1995 requesting them to include his name in the list of applicants. The respondents again called the appellant in their office for 11.10.1995 vide letter dated 25.9.1995. The appellant accordingly visited the office of the respondents and filed a fresh affidavit dated 12.10.1995 declaring that he was not allotted any plot.
4. It was further pleaded that the appellant again received letter dated 30.4.1997 asking the appellant to appear in the office of the respondents along with some documents so that his name was included in the draw of lots. The appellant informed the respondents that he was on a long tour to South India and requested the respondents to give him another opportunity to appear in their office. The appellant gave his consent on 3.9.1997 which was received in the office of the respondents on 9.9.1997.
5. It was further pleaded that the appellant received the letter dated 15.1.1998 from the respondents that his name was not included in the draw of lots as he had failed to attend the office of the respondents in compliance with the letter dated 30.4.1997. The appellant requested the respondents that since he was on a long tour to South India, therefore, he could not appear. The respondents have not allotted any plot to the appellant, although the plots were allotted to other applicants in Mohali. The appellant served the legal notice on the respondents on 16.1.2004 but there was no response. Hence the complaint for a direction to the respondents to allot a plot measuring 500 sq. yards to the appellant. Compensation and costs were also prayed.
First Appeal No.55 of 2006. 3Version of the respondents:
6. The respondents filed the written statement. It was not denied that the appellant had submitted the application for the allotment of a plot measuring 500 sq. yards in SAS Nagar, Mohali and that he had deposited an amount of Rs.975/-
against receipt dated 11.8.1969. The appellant was not successful in the draw of lots. Then he was asked to deposit a sum of Rs.59,025/- and this amount was deposited by the appellant. The appellant had also exercised his option for allotment of a plot at new rates. It was also admitted that the appellant was asked to give his affidavit on 22.6.1994 and the appellant had accordingly submitted the affidavit.
7. It was further admitted that the respondents vide telegram dated 7.7.1995 had asked the appellant to appear in their office within four days along with record/receipts for allotment of a plot. The letter was also sent in confirmation. It was also specifically mentioned in that letter that if the appellant fails to attend the office of the respondents then his application for allotment of plot will not be considered in the draw of lots. The appellant failed to appear. Instead he wrote a letter dated 11.7.1995 wherein it was mentioned that he had shown the receipt of Rs.975/- to one Swaran Singh. He had also failed to produce the other record pertaining to exercise of option for allotment of a plot at new rates before moving the application dated 11.7.1995.
8. It was further admitted that the appellant had written letter dated 9.8.1995 which was received in the office of the respondents on the same date but the appellant had failed to appear before the Estate Officer or to show requisite documents to him or to exercise the option of new rates. It was admitted that the appellant had visited the office of the respondents on 11.10.1995 and he had furnished the fresh affidavit on 12.10.1995.
9. It was admitted that the respondents vide their letter dated 30.4.1997 asked the appellant to appear in their office for identification and for bringing driving licence/voter card/ration card/identity card and other document pertaining to First Appeal No.55 of 2006. 4 registration number. He was also told that after identification of registration number, his name would be included in the draw of lots. He was also asked to bring the affidavit to the effect that he did not own any house/plot/flat in Mohali and also to submit the written consent for allotment of a plot at the rate of Rs.3600/- per sq. yard. However the appellant had failed to appear. He also failed to give the written consent for allotment of a plot at the new rates. It was admitted that the appellant had failed to appear in the office of the respondents but he had given the consent for the allotment of a plot on the new rates at the rate of Rs.3,600/- per sq. yard to the Additional Chief Administrator, PUDA, SAS Nagar, Mohali vide letter dated 3.9.1997. It was received in the office of the respondents on 9.9.1997.
10. It was also admitted that respondent No.2 had written letter dated 15.1.1998 to the Additional Chief Administrator, PUDA, SAS Nagar, Mohali informing him that the appellant had failed to appear before the Scrutiny Committee from 7.5.1997 to 9.5.1997. Therefore name of the appellant could not be considered in the draw of lots. It's copy was also sent to the appellant. Only those persons were considered in the draw of lots who had completed the formalities and had exercised the option but since the appellant had not completed the formalities and had failed to exercise the option of the new rates and even failed to appear before the Committee, therefore, his name was not considered in the draw of lots. The appellant was even asked by the respondents vide their letter dated 26.2.2001 to exercise the option of new rates at the rate of Rs.3750/- per sq. yard for allotment of a plot in Sector 76 to 80 but the appellant failed to exercise the option. It was denied if there was any deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. Dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
Proceeding in District Forum:
11. The appellant filed his affidavit Ex.C1. He also proved documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C15.First Appeal No.55 of 2006. 5
12. On the other hand, the respondents filed the affidavit of Darshan Singh, Estate Officer, PUDA as Ex.R-1. The respondents also proved documents Ex.R-2 to Ex.R-5.
13. Learned District Forum dismissed the complaint vide impugned order dated 1.12.2005.
14. Hence the appeal.
Discussion:
15. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant was that the appeal be accepted, impugned order dated 1.12.2005 be set aside and the respondents be directed to allot a plot measuring 500 sq. yards to the appellant. He also prayed for compensation and costs.
16. On the other hand, the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents was that there was no merit in the present appeal and the same be dismissed.
17. Record has been perused. Submissions have been considered.
18. The appellant had originally applied for a plot by depositing an amount of Rs.975/- against receipt dated 11.8.1969 to the respondents. There was some correspondence in between but as per the version of the appellant the respondents vide their letter dated 15.1.1998 had failed to consider the name of the appellant in the draw of lots by alleging that he had failed to attend their office.
19. On the other hand, the respondents have pleaded that the appellant was even required vide their letter dated 26.2.2001 (Ex.R-5) to exercise his option for allotment of a plot at the rate of Rs.3750/- per sq. yard. If the date is taken from 15.1.1998 when the name of the appellant was not included in the draw of lots the cause of action had arisen to him on 15.1.1998 but the complaint was filed by the appellant in the District Forum on 23.4.2004 i.e. many years after 15.1.1998 when cause of action had arisen to the appellant.
20. Even if it is believed that the respondents had written the last letter dated 26.2.2001 (Ex.R-5) to the appellant asking him to exercise the option still the First Appeal No.55 of 2006. 6 complaint is barred by limitation having been filed on 23.4.2004. Secondly even the letter dated 26.2.2001 (Ex.R-5) was not complied with by the appellant.
21. Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act deals with limitation. It reads as under:-
"24A. Limitation period. - (1) The District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-
section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period:
Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the National Commission, the State Commission or the District Forum, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay."
22. The provisions of Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act were interpreted by the Hon'ble Supreme in the judgement reported as "State Bank of India v. B.S. Agricultural Industries (I)" 2009 CTJ 481 (Supreme Court) (CP) and the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to observe as under:-
"8. 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 First Appeal No.55 of 2006. 7 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 24A is sort of a legislative command to the consumer forum to examine on its own whether the complaint has been filed within limitation period prescribed thereunder. 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 24A 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."
23. This view of law was reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its latest judgment reported as "V.N. Shrikhande (Dr.) v. Anita Sena Fernandes" 2011 CTJ 1 (SUPREME COURT) (CP). It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under:-
"Section 24A(1) contains a negative legislative mandate against admission of a complaint which has been filed after 2 years from the date of accrual of cause of action. In other words, the consumer forums do not have the jurisdiction to entertain a complaint if the same is not filed within 2 years from the date on which the cause of First Appeal No.55 of 2006. 8 action has arisen. This power is required to be exercised after giving opportunity of hearing to the complainant, who can seek condonation of delay under Section 24A(2) by showing that there was sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within the period prescribed under Section 24A(1). If the complaint is per se barred by time and the complainant does not seek condonation of delay under Section 24A(2), the consumer forums will have no option but to dismiss the same. Reference in this connection can usefully be made to the recent judgments in State Bank of India v.
B.S. Agricultural Industries (I), 2009 CTJ 481 (SC)(CP)=(2009) 5 SCC 121 and Kandimalla Raghavaiah and Company v. National Insurance Company and another, 2009 CTJ 951 (SC)(CP)=(2009) 7 SCC 768."
24. Then it was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant had served the legal notice on the respondents on 16.1.2004 and the complaint was filed within two years after the service of the notice. Therefore the complaint was filed within limitation.
25. This submission has been considered.
26 By serving the legal notice or by making representation, the period of limitation cannot be extended by the appellant. In this context reference can be made to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgement reported as "Kandimalla Raghavaiah & Co. Versus National Insurance Co. Ltd. and another" 2009 CTJ 951 (Supreme Court) (CP) wherein it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under:-
"By no stretch of imagination, it can be said that Insurance Company's reply dated 21st March, 1996 to First Appeal No.55 of 2006. 9 the legal notice dated 4th January, 1996, declining to issue the forms for preferring a claim after a lapse of more than four years of the date of fire, resulted in extending the period of limitation for the purpose of Section 24A of the Act. We have no hesitation in holding that the complaint filed on 24th October, 1997 and that too without an application for condonation of delay was manifestly barred by limitation and the Commission was justified in dismissing it on that short ground."
27. Otherwise also the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold in the judgment reported as "GREATER MOHALI AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR. v. MANJU JAIN & ORS." I(2011) CPJ 4 (SC) that an applicant does not become a consumer till allotment is made. It was also held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 22 of the aforesaid judgment as under:-
"22. Mere draw of lots/allocation letter does not confer any right to allotment. The system of draw of lots is being resorted to with a view to identify the prospective allottee. It is only a mode, a method, a process to identify the allottee i.e. the process of selection. It is not an allotment by itself. Mere identification or selection of the allottee does not clothe the person selected with a legal right to allotment."
28. Keeping in view the discussion held above, it is held that the complaint was filed by the appellant beyond the expiry of period of limitation of two years and no reasons have been shown by him as to why the complaint was not filed within the period of limitation. Even no application for condonation of delay has been filed. First Appeal No.55 of 2006. 10 Therefore the question of condonation of delay did not arise. Hence it is held that the complaint filed by the appellant is barred by limitation.
29. There is no merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed.
30. The arguments in this case were heard on 20.5.2011 and the order was reserved. Now, the order be communicated to the parties.
31. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL)
PRESIDENT
(MRS. AMARPREET SHARMA)
MEMBER
June 02 , 2011 (BALDEV SINGH SEKHON)
Bansal MEMBER