National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Ludhiana Improvement Trust vs Svitri Devi Alias Sumitra Devi & Ors. on 28 May, 2012
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI FIRST APPEAL NO. 78 OF 2011 (Against the order dated 30.7.2007 in Complaint Case No.26/2005 (Pb)/RBT/53/2007 of the State Commission, UT Chandigarh) Ludhiana Improvement Trust, Ludhiana through its Chairman Ludhiana, Punjab .Appellant Versus 1. Nirmaljit Kaur D/o S. Narinder Singh S/o. S. Gopal Singh Through General Power of Attorney Gurmeet Kaur W/o Karamjit Singh R/o 647, Opposite Old D.M.C. Civil Lines, Ludhiana 2. State of Punjab Through Secretary, Department of Local Government, Punjab, Chandigarh ........Respondents FIRST APPEAL NO. 79 OF 2011 (Against the order dated 30.7.2007 in Complaint Case No.27/2005 (Pb)/RBT/55/2007 of the State Commission, UT Chandigarh) Ludhiana Improvement Trust, Ludhiana through its Chairman Ludhiana, Punjab .Appellant Versus 1. Svitri Devi Alias Sumitra Devi, Widow 2. Tarsem Lal 3. Satpal 4. Sohan Lal Sons 5. Santosh Rani 6. Krishna Devi 7. Darshana Devi, Daughters Through Special Power of Attorney Deepinder Singh S/o Kartar Singh R/o 634-R, Model Town, Ludhiana Punjab 8. State of Punjab Through Secretary, Department of Local Government, Punjab, Chandigarh ........Respondents FIRST APPEAL NO. 80 OF 2011 (Against the order dated 30.7.2007 in Complaint Case No.28/2005 (Pb)/RBT/52/2007 of the State Commission, UT Chandigarh) Ludhiana Improvement Trust, Ludhiana through its Chairman Ludhiana, Punjab .Appellant Versus 1. Maninder Pal Singh S/o. S. Narinder Singh S/o S. Gopal Singh Through General Power of Attorney Devinder Singh S/o S. Gurbachan Singh R/o 647, Opposite Old D.M.C. Civil Lines, Ludhiana 2. State of Punjab Through Secretary, Department of Local Government, Punjab, Chandigarh ........Respondents BEFORE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE MR. VINAY KUMAR, MEMBER For the Appellant : Mr. Arun K. Sinha, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Satinder S. Gulati, Advocate PRONOUNCED ON: 28.5.2012 ORDER
PER MR.VINAY KUMAR, MEMBER These three appeals are against the common order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT of Chandigarh in three separate complaint cases filed by the three respondents. In the order pronounced on 30.07.2007, the State Commission had made the following order:-
Hence, in view of the discussion above, all the complaints are accepted with cost of Rs.2000/- each in the manner as stated above and Ludhiana Improvement Trust is directed to allot plots in accordance with directions issued above on the rates prevalent at that time in the same scheme or in other scheme similar to that scheme framed by it, compensation for delay, mental pain and agony not allowed as plots have been ordered to be allotted on old rates as prevalent in the year 1973-1974. The direction be carried out within three months.
2. The three appeals against the above order have been filed by Ludhiana Improvement Trust (LIT) on 11.2.2011, after lapse of 1292 days i.e. over three and a half years. The appeals were dismissed in default on 6.9.2011 but later restored on 3.11.2011. When the matter came up next on 7.12.2011, learned counsel for the respondents objected to admission of the appeals on the ground of inordinate delay of nearly 1280 days. He drew our attention to the details given in the application for condonation. The only explanation was in a bland statement that it was due to various channels for obtaining sanction and for necessary instructions for filing the present appeal and thus the delay is so caused is not intentional but due to interdepartmental procedure.
Counsel for the respondents pointed out that applicant LIT has not explained what are the channels involved in obtaining sanction or what inter departmental procedures are involved. Moreover, the condonation application does not even mention the number of days of delay. However, during arguments learned counsel for the appellant accepted that the delay is of 1280 days. He has also filed an affidavit of Mr. Avtar Singh Azaad Executive Officer of Ludhiana Improvement Trust in which delay of 1280 days is admitted. The affidavit explained That the deponent further states before the Honble Tribunal that the delay of 1280 days in filing of the present appeal is absolutely unintentionally and without any malafides, as is evident from the fact that necessary show cause notices have been issued to delinquent officials of the Trust who were unable to protect the interest of the Improvement Trust in the present case and proceedings in consequence of threes show cause notices are going on. The copy of the show cause notices issued by the Improvement Trust to the delinquent officials seeking explanation for the delay caused in the present case are annexed as Annexure A-1 respectively.
3. We have perused the Memo No. LIT/6366-67-68 dated 17.12.2010 issued to three officials of the applicant Ludhiana Improvement Trust. The memo gave them ten days time to explain their conduct, failing which action was threatened against them. However, nothing is placed on record to show what further actions was taken against these three officials between the above mentioned memo of 17.12.2010 and the additional affidavit of 6.12.2011 i.e. in the period of 12 months or even thereafter. It is thus evident that the appellant/LIT has not given any acceptable explanation for this huge delay.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that considering the case of the appellant on merits, delay in this case needs to be condoned. In support of this argument he relied on the decision of the Supreme Court of India in Improvement Trust, Ludhiana Vs. Ujagar Singh and Ors. (2010) 6 SCC 786. In this case, the appeal was filed with a delay of two months. Application under Section 5 of Limitation Act, seeking condonation of the delay was dismissed by the appellate court holding that there were no good and sufficient grounds for condonation. Consequently, the appeal itself was dismissed. The Supreme Court allowed the Civil Appeal holding that delay in filing the First Appeal before the District Judge was not so huge as to warrant the dismissal of the appeal itself on such a hyper- technical ground. The Apex Court has observed:-
While considering the application for condonation of delay no strait jacket formula is prescribed to come to the conclusion if sufficient and good grounds have been made out or not. Each case has to be weighed from its facts and the circumstances in which the party acts and behaves. From the conduct, behaviour and attitude of the appellant it cannot be said that it had been absolutely callous and negligent in prosecuting the matter.
5. Clearly, facts of the case before us are very different. The delay is huge. Secondly, the attitude of the appellant shows total callousness and absence of serious concern. Delay of over three and a half years is sought to be explained as caused by involvement of various channels in according sanction. There is nothing on record to show how many approvals were required in reaching a decision to file the appeal. There is nothing on record to show how much time was reasonably required for the same. Apparently, the time consumed was substantially more than reasonable. Else, the decision to issue notices to the concerned officials could not have been taken. But, even the effort to proceed against these officials does not show any seriousness or sense of time.
6. A similar matter arose before the Apex Court in an SLP Civil 1427 of 2011 decided on 15.4.2010 in Estate Officer U.T. Chandigarh & Anr. Vs. Kanwaljit Singh Kochhar & Anr. Delay of 3921 days in filing the appeal came up for consideration before the State Commission and the National Commission.
Both Commissions decline to condone the delay. The Apex Court agreed, observing:-
In our view, the explanation given by the petitioners for delayed filing of the applications for condonation of delay is wholly unsatisfactory and keeping in view the fact that for filing appeals against the orders of the State Commission (Section 19) and the National Commission (Section 23) passed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the limitation is 30 days only, we do not find any justification to entertain their prayer for condonation of delay.
In the impugned order, the LIT was given three months to allot the plots. Yet, it has taken three and a half years to file these appeals challenging the impugned order. We therefore, have no hesitation in holding that the prayer for condonation of delay should not be allowed.
7. Nevertheless, coming to the merits, it is seen that the complaints related to failure of the LIT to consider the claim of the Complainants for allotment of site in lieu of acquisition of land acquired from their grandfather for a model town development scheme. Under the extant rules, the local displace persons were required to be settled before allotment of plots to others. The LIT contested the claim on the ground that there was no re-housing scheme for displaced persons.
8. The State Commission relied upon the provision in Rule 5 (2) of the Ludhiana Improvement Trust Land Disposal Rules, 1964, which reads as follows:-
The trust shall similarly fix a concessional price at which land comprised in a scheme will be sold to Local Displaced persons. The concessional price shall not be less the cost price of the land to the trust i.e. the estimated cost of acquisition of the land plus development charges etc. Not more than one plot of land when demarcated into plots shall be sold to a Local Displaced Person. The size of the plot to be allotted shall be in keeping with the quantum of land acquired and as far as possible; he will be accommodated near his own land. Only after the claims, if any, of this category of persons have been met, the land shall be sold to others.
9. The State Commission also took note of the fact that in a similar case of one Shri Kapoor Singh, the claim of the writ petitioner was accepted by the High Court (CWP/368/1994) and the plot was ordered to be allotted. The Improvement Trust did not take this plea that it had not framed a scheme for this purpose. Therefore, the three complaints were allowed and the State Commission gave the impugned direction to allot plots to the Complainants, within three months. We do not agree with learned counsel for the appellant that the complaints were time barred. The appeal memorandum itself says that the State Government rejected the claims in 2003. The consumer complaints were filed in 2005. This by itself does not show delay. Moreover, the Written response of LIT before the State Commission raises the plea of limitation but does not even mention the quantum of delay. We therefore agree with the State Commission.
10. For reasons discussed in the foregoing paras, the appeals are dismissed on the grounds of limitation as well as merit. The appellant/ Ludhiana Improvement Trust has taken three and a half years to challenge the impugned order of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh in CC Nos.26/2005, 27/2005 and 28/2005, when it was given only three months to implement it. Therefore, considering this conduct, we deem it appropriate to order that the appellant shall implement the impugned order in three months and also pay cost of Rs.5000/- to each complainant.
.Sd/-
(V.B.GUPTA,J.) PRESIDING MEMBER Sd/-.
(VINAY KUMAR) MEMBER s./-