State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Delhi Development Authority vs Ajay Kumar on 7 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 : 7.3.2011 First Appeal 29/11 (Arising out of the order dated 23.9.2010 passed by the District Forum-II, Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Institutional Area, Behind Qutab Hotel, New Delhi in complaint case no 232/2010) Delhi Development Authority Through its Chairman Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi .........Appellant VS Shri Ajay Kumar s/o Sh. R.D. Arora r/o B-1/138, New Moti Nagar,, New Delhi -110 015 .. 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. The appeal is directed against the order dated 23.9.2010 passed by Ld. Consumer Forum-II, Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23 Institutional Area, Behind Qutab Hotel, New Delhi in case No.232/2010.
2. This appeal has been filed with a delay of 82 days. The appellant has filed an application for condonation for delay wherein the delay of only 60 days is explained.
3. We have heard Ms Madhumita Bhattacharya, Counsel for the appellant and Shri Vinod Pant, Counsel for the respondent on delay condonation application.
4. The reason given for the delay of 60 days are explained in paras 1 to 16 of the application which reads as follows:-
That the impugned order was received by the appellant on 30.9.2010, thereafter on 12.10.2010 it was sent to the legal department for approval. After that it was sent to finance department for opinion. The finance department after considering through its various channels decided that DDA should prefer an appeal; then the file was sent to Commissioner(H) for approval on 24.11.2010. The approval was obtained on 26.11.2010. After approval the matter was entrusted on 2.12.2010 and POA was signed on 7.12.2010. The file was sent to the panel of Lawyers on 9.12.2010. The appeal was prepared and sent back to department for drawing an F.D.R. on 27.12.2010. In the said process a delay of 60 days have occurred. There after the appeal was filed on 22.1.2011 after the delay of 82 days.
The appellant has not explained the reasons for delay of 25 days in between 27.12.2010 to 22.1.2011.
The reasons as given above by the appellant for condonation of delay do not constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay. The DDA should have adhered to the schedule given in law and should have ensured that the appeal is filed in time.
5. The Honble Supreme Court in a latest 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.
6. In view of the above ruling of Honble Supreme Court, no good ground for condonation of delay is made out by the DDA, as a result the application for condonation of delay is dismissed and consequently the appeal is also dismissed as barred by time.
7. FDR, if any, deposited by the appellant be released after completing due formalities.
8. 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 (Mrs. Salma Noor) Member Arya