APPEARED AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENTS

PRONOUNCED ON :  27.07.2017

O R D E R

PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER

          This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 12.02.2016, passed by the U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal No. 1523/2001, “Arun Prakash versus Meerut Development Authority”, vide which, while dismissing the said appeal, the order dated 26.05.2001, passed by the Meerut District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in Consumer Complaint No. 256/1997, filed by the complainant/respondent Arun Prakash, partly allowing the said complaint, was upheld.

2.       The brief facts of the case are that the complainant made an application to the Opposite Party (OP), Meerut Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as Authority) under their self-financing scheme for Medium Income Group House Allotment in response to their advertisement in the newspapers on 04.01.91 and deposited a sum of Rs.20,100/- as registration amount on 29.01.91.  Further, on demand by the OP, the remaining amount of Rs.1,80,900/- was also deposited by the complainant on 29.04.1991, following which a MIG House No. N-53, was allotted to the complainant by the OP.  The possession of the property was also delivered to him on 06.04.1992.  At the request of the complainant, the OP provided the details of the cost of the unit to him, from which it was discovered that they had charged a sum of Rs.12,647.71ps. as interest for construction period of 18 months, net profit of Rs.12,250.60ps., maintenance fees of Rs.2,090.30ps. and contingent expenditure of Rs.2,000/-.  Alleging that the opposite party was not competent to charge these amounts, the complainant filed the consumer complaint in question, seeking the following relief :-

“a.     That the amount taken by the opposite party arbitrarily on account of cost of the house, interest, profit, maintenance and contingent expenses being Rs.29,000/- and the interest thereon at Rs.20,000/- from 06.04.1992 and on Rs.9,000/- from 02.02.1995 @15% till the date of realisation be awarded to the complainant.

b.      That expenditure incurred in correspondence and legal notice amounting to Rs.2,500/- be awarded in favour of the complainant and against the opposite party and also Rs.20,000/- on account of mental pain and agony be awarded in favour of the complainant and against the opposite party.

c.      ....................

         ....................”

3.       The complaint was contested by the petitioner Authority by filing a written statement before the District Forum, in which they stated that the valuation of the property had been done in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Scheme.  The Authority also stated that enhanced cost for the land was payable by the allottee and the sale-deed shall be executed after the deposit of the enhanced amount.  The District Forum after considering the averments of the parties in detail, partly allowed the complaint and directed as follows:-

“However, it is hereby ordered to the OP the excess amount realised by the OP from the complainant Rs.12,646.71/- amount of profit Rs.12,259.60/- maintenance amount Rs.2,090.60/- and un-imaginary amount Rs.2,000/- total Rs.28,996/- the OP is liable to pay to the complainant alongwith interest 12% p.a. from the date of institution of the complainant till its payment, within one month.  Except it, the OP should pay Rs.1,000/- as for expenses for litigation and Rs.2,000/- as for compensation.  Besides, it is ordered to the OP that the OP must execute the sale deed of the allotted house in favour of the complainant within one month from the date of this order.”

4.       Being aggrieved against the Order of the District Forum, the OP Authority challenged the same by way of an appeal before the State Commission, but the said appeal having been dismissed vide impugned order, the OP Authority is before this Commission by way of the present revision petition. 

5.       During preliminary hearing, it was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner Authority that the Authority had charged the amount due from the complainant as per the rules and regulations on the subject and the possession of the property had also been given in the year 1992.  The consumer complaint having been made in the year 1997, was barred by limitation.  The learned counsel also stated that they could not present their case before the State Commission as their counsel was absent on that date.  However, he could not describe any valid reason as to why the said counsel was absent.  The learned counsel stated that the matter should be remanded to the State Commission for deciding the appeal after hearing them. 

6.       I have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before me.

7.       There is a delay of 182 days in filing the present revision petition.  In the application for condonation of delay, it has been mentioned that the impugned order of the State Commission was made on 12.02.2016 and a copy of the same was issued to them only on 29.06.2016.  However, the said copy was received in the property department of the Authority on 14.10.2016.  No reasons have been given why it took about four months for the said letter to reach the property department of the petitioner.  The present petition having been filed on 28.03.2017, there does not seem to be any cogent or convincing reason for the condonation of huge delay of 182 days in filing the appeal.  The Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Commission have already observed in a catena of judgments / orders that the delay in instituting the proceedings should be condoned only, if there is valid explanation forthcoming from a party for condonation of such delay.  A reference may be made to an order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority”, [IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC)], in which it has been held that:-

 “It is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if this Court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the Consumer Foras.”

8.       Based on the discussion above, it is evident that there is no justification for the condonation of delay of 182 days in filing the present revision petition.

9.       Further, a perusal of the impugned order of the State Commission reveals that the counsel for the petitioner Authority did not appear before the State Commission and the said Commission was left with no alternative, but to decide the case after hearing the complainant only.  No explanation at all has been given in the grounds of revision petition or during arguments before me about the absence of the said counsel.  There is no justification to accept the present revision petition on this ground as well.

10.     A perusal of the grounds of revision petition reveals that the petitioner has nowhere given any explanation as to how the direction given by the Consumer Fora below to refund the excess money to the complainant was bad in the eyes of law, rather they have not touched upon this issue at all in the grounds of revision petition.  The only ground mentioned in the revision petition is that the complainant no longer remains a consumer after the possession has been delivered to him and that after taking the possession in the year 1992, the complainant could not have filed the consumer complaint in the year 1997, which is time barred.  I do not find any valid ground to agree with the contention raised by the petitioner Authority.  It is evident from the facts on record that the petitioner did allot a residential unit to the complainant after receiving the entire amount demanded by them and the possession of the same was also delivered to him in the year 1992.  In case, any further issues regarding payment of excess money or non-provision of any amenities etc. arise between the parties, they have to be settled in accordance with law.  The contention that the allottee loses the status of consumer after receiving possession of the property, cannot be accepted by any stretch of imagination.  The plea of the appellant Authority, therefore, that the complainant lost the status of consumer, is not acceptable.  Further, after receiving the possession of the property, if the consumer had raised the issues about excess pricing etc., he had a right to institute the proceedings against the Authority.  Considering the fact that the Authority has not stated anything about the excess price in their grounds of revision petition, the present case shall be considered as a case of continuing cause of action.  There is no force, therefore, in the grounds taken in the revision petition before us.  It is held, therefore, that the orders passed by the Consumer Fora below do not suffer from any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error of any kind which may require interference in the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction.  Moreover, it is a settled legal proposition that the scope of interference in revision petition is limited and such jurisdiction should be invoked only, if there is any jurisdictional error or material defect in the concurrent findings of the consumer fora below.  This view has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Rubi (Chandra) Dutta v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., [(2011) 11 SCC 269]”. 

11.       Based on the discussion above, it is held that there is no merit in this revision petition and the same is ordered to be dismissed in limini and the orders passed by the Consumer Fora below are upheld.  There shall be no order as to costs.