National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Ludhiana Improvement Trust vs Surinder Singh & Anr. on 21 April, 2015
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI FIRST APPEAL NO. 31 OF 2015 (Against the Order dated 18/02/2014 in Complaint No. 36/2009 of the State Commission Punjab) 1. LUDHIANA IMPROVEMENT TRUST THROUGH ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER, LUHDIANA (PUNJAB) ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. SURINDER SINGH & ANR. LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF LATE SMT. GURCHARAN KAUR, S/O. SH. MOHINDER SINGH, 460, AMAN VIHAR, CHANDAN NAGAR, LUDHIANA PUNJAB 2. THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, LOCAL GOVERNMENT-PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.K. JAIN, PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. VINAY KUMAR, MEMBER HON'BLE MRS. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER For the Appellant : Mr. Gagan Gupta, Advocate For the Respondent :
Dated : 21 Apr 2015 ORDER
1. This First Appeal, under Section 19 read with Section 21(a)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), has been filed by the Ludhiana Improvement Trust, Opposite Party No.2 in the Complaint, against order dated 18.02.2014, passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Chandigarh (for short "the State Commission") in Complaint No.36 of 2009.
2. The Complaint was filed by Respondent No.1, complaining that since her land, admeasuring 9 Marla, had been acquired, the Appellant Trust and the State had failed to allot to her, a Locally Displaced Person, a suitable plot under the Scheme known as 'Maharishi Balmik Nagar 256 Acre Development Scheme' floated by them, in contravention of the policy letter, dated 19.05.2006, issued by the Government of Punjab. She prayed for a direction to the Appellant to allot a suitable plot of area measuring 500 sq. yards in the said Scheme, for which the land was acquired, or in any other equally developed Scheme, if the plots are not available in the Scheme. Besides, a compensation of ₹44 Lakhs with interest from the date of the Complaint and costs was also prayed for.
3. On consideration of the evidence adduced by the parties before it, the State Commission, while accepting the Complaint, directed the Opposite Parties, i.e. the Appellant and Respondent No.2, the State Government, to allot to Respondent No.1/Complainant a plot next below 9 Marlas (wrongly written as 0.9 Marlas but later corrected vide order dated 24.09.2014) in their Scheme, at the reserve price fixed by them at the time of filing the Complaint. The Opposite Parties were further directed to pay to the Complainant a sum of ₹30,000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service on their part and ₹10,000/- as litigation expenses.
4. It is pointed out by the office that this Appeal is barred by limitation, as there is inordinate delay of 156 days in filing the same. An application for condonation of said delay has been filed along with the Appeal. In paragraphs 2 to 8 of the said application, the explanation furnished is as under:
"2. That the impugned order was passed on 18.02.2014. Although the certified copy of the same, as is being filed with this appeal, mentions that the free copy was issued on 18.03.2014, however, the same was received in the office of the Appellant on 10.07.2014 and the same is duly recorded in the register of letters received in the office of the Appellant at serial no. 2707.
3. That while the Appellant Trust was considering the case of the respondent no.1 vis-à-vis direction of the Hon'ble State Commission in order dated 18.2.2014 for allotment of a plot next below 0.9 marlas in the Scheme, as also was considering about filing of an Appeal in this Hon'ble Commission, it received copy of application dated 15.09.2014 being M.A. No. 1984 of 2014 filed by the Respondent No.1 for correction of clerical mistake in the order dated 18.02.2014.
4. That on 24.09.2014 M.A. No. 1984 of 2014 was allowed by the Hon'ble S.C.D.R.C. and free copy thereof was issued on 27.10.2014 and was received in the office of the Appellant on 04.11.2014.
5. That thereafter Trust office write letter no. 10452 dated 10-11-2014 to Director, Local Govt. to appoint Advocate for filing appeal in National Commission.
6. That in these circumstances counsel was engaged in the first week of December, 2014 and relevant documents as requested by the counsel could be provided to him by last week of December 2014 and the Appeal was thereafter prepared and was sent to the Appellant for vetting, and thereafter, for signatures and other procedural formalities.
7. That in the above process, limitation for filing the present Appeal is to be computed from 10.07.2014 and thus there is delay of 156 days in filing the Appeal, limitation period being 30 days.
8. That the delay has been caused only due to aforesaid circumstances, bonafide reasons and departmental procedures. There was no intention on the part of the Appellant to abandon this litigation. The Appellant has a very good case on merits and the Appellant is a public body discharging public functions."
5. We have heard learned counsel for the Appellant Trust on the question of delay.
6. We are constrained to observe that the explanation furnished by the Appellant is misleading and malafide. Although the plea that the certified copy of the impugned order dated 18.02.2014 was received by it on 10.07.2014 does not inspire confidence, yet, on its showing that the certified copy of the impugned order was received by it on 10.07.2014, as per the provisions contained in Section 19 of the Act, the Appeal before this Commission against the said order was required to be filed on or before 09.08.2014. Thus, the only explanation that while it was considering filing of Appeal, on 15.09.2014 it received a copy of the application filed by Respondent No.1/Complainant for rectification of a clerical mistake is without any substance. It is manifest that by 15.09.2014, the period of limitation to file Appeal against the impugned order had expired and, therefore, receipt of copy of application was of no consequence. We are unable to fathom any reason as to why on receipt of the certified copy of the impugned order dated 18.02.2014 on 10.07.2014, the Appellant did not move in the matter for four months and swung into action only on 10.11.2014, when it wrote a letter to the Director, Local Govt. for doing the needful in the matter. We note that the said letter was written by the Appellant only after 04.11.2014, when it had received the certified copy of the order passed in the correction application by the State Commission. In our view, since the impugned order dated 18.02.2014, which was admittedly received by the Appellant on 10.07.2014, was a substantive order, there was no need for it to keep the same pending for uncertain period, ignoring the limitation period provided under the Act for challenging the same. In our opinion, the subsequent events, relating to filing of correction application by Respondent No.1/Complainant and receipt of the certified copy of order dated 24.09.2014, passed by the State Commission on the said application, by the Appellant, which were incidental happenings to the passing of the impugned order dated 18.02.2014, are irrelevant and cannot be permitted to be used by the Appellant as a ground to get over their lethargic and indifferent attitude towards a hapless farmer, who is waiting for justice for the last almost seven years. Having acquired his land for commercial exploitation, the Appellant is reluctant to allot a small piece of land to Respondent No.1/Complainant under the Scheme, primarily meant for rehabilitation of Locally Displaced Persons.
7. Bearing in mind the afore-stated facts and the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to the effect that while deciding an application for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Act for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the Consumer Foras are entertained, we are not inclined to condone an inordinate delay of 156 days in filing of the present Appeal and subject Respondent No.1/Complainant to further harassment and mental agony.
8. Consequently, the Appeal is dismissed in limine on the ground of limitation.
......................J D.K. JAIN PRESIDENT ...................... VINAY KUMAR MEMBER ...................... M. SHREESHA MEMBER