PER  MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.

1.         This is an appeal filed by the appellant/complainant against the order, dated 28.11.2007 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as District Forum only) in complaint case No. 644 of 2005 vide which, it dismissed the complaint.

2.         Briefly stated, the facts of the case, are that in response to the advertisement dated 5.11.1977 by OP No.1, for allotment of built-up houses in Chandigarh in 2-3 years period, the complainant procured an application form. As per the provisions of the Scheme, the names of eligible applicants were to be maintained in a register, for the allotment of houses, in the Sectors, mentioned in the advertisement issued by OP No.1. It was provided that if & when the houses were constructed, in other Sectors, or of different designs or at different cost, an opportunity would first of all be given to the registered applicants, before offering these houses, to fresh applicants. It was stated that the complainant fulfilled all the conditions, and got himself registered, by depositing a sum of Rs.3000/-. After registration, he was quite sure to get the built-up independent house of MIG (Upper) Category, for which, he was registered under Registration No.10515. It was further stated that after more than 27 years, the complainant had not been allotted the said house and, thereafter, the MIG independent houses started to be doled out, even to the non-applicants. Due to this act, many applicants had to withdraw their earnest money, and those who waited, were compelled to accept the left out multi-storied flats, with smaller accommodation, and that too, very expensive. It was further stated that OP No.1 started compelling the remaining applicants, to opt for flat type houses, instead of the independent houses, on the false plea of scarcity of land. It was further stated that OP No.1 built thousands of independent houses of different categories, and allotted the same to the applicants of subsequent schemes even after 1981, instead of accommodating the left out Chandigarh Housing Board applicants for MIG independent houses. The applicants opposed the proposal of allotting multi- storey flats, and insisted for allotment of only MIG (Independent) houses, as they had applied for those houses. It was further stated that when the OPs failed to allot the MIG (Independent) house to the complainant, by the stipulated year of 1980, he alongwith other applicants, filed a Civil Writ Petition No. 4784 of 1981, which was disposed of, vide order dated 15.1.1992, with a direction to the Chandigarh Housing Board, to consider sympathetically the prayers, made before the High Court, that some concession in the price, which was being charged, for the dwelling units, be given to them. Thereafter, the complainant approached OP No.1 to reconsider his case, for the allotment of the applied house, within the stipulated period of 6 months, but to no avail. The complainant also requested OP No.1 vide letter dated 27.3.1992, to make necessary changes in his postal address, but to no effect. It was further stated that, after finding that some MIG-II (Independent) houses were still lying unallotted, with OP No.1, a few Petitioners, in the aforesaid writ-petition, filed a COCP in the Hon’ble High Court. In pursuance of the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court, OP No.1 issued a letter dated 10.3.95, to the MIG (Independent) applicants, asking them to give their option upto 23.3.1995, for inclusion of their names, in the draw of lots, for 6 unallotted MIG-II (Independent) houses. However, OP No.1 sent the said letter to the complainant, at his old address, though the complainant had already informed on 27.3.1992 about the change of his postal address and, as such, the registered letter was sent back to the office of OP No.1 ‘undelivered’. However, the complainant came to know about the said letter and he visited the office of OP No.1 on 4.4.1995. By that date the stipulated date i.e. 23.3.1995, for submitting the requisite option had already expired, due to the fault of the officials of OP No.1. Due to their fault, they told him that he could give his option for inclusion his name in the draw, even, thereafter, on any date, before the date for draw of lots, which was fixed as 14.5.1995. Ultimately, on 12.5.1995, the complainant had to submit his option, for inclusion of his name, in the draw of lots, for the allotment of MIG-II (Independent) house. He also filed a complaint dated 12.5.95, to OP No.1, for not publishing the list of the persons, to be included, in the draw of lots scheduled to be held on 14.5.1995. It was further stated that later on, he came to know that the list displayed, on the notice board, just one day earlier, included the names of certain strangers, who were not the registered applicants, and his name was not included in the draw of lots scheduled to be held on 14.5.1995. Vide letter dated 16.5.1995, the complainant sought a clarification, but to no avail. Thereafter, the complainant submitted detailed representations dated 25.9.2000 and 11.12.2000 and visited the office of OP No.1 a number of times, to sort out the matter, but OP No.1 did not give any response. It was further stated that on 18.12.2000, he met the Chairperson of OP No.1, but to no avail. However, OP No.1 also failed to respond even to the legal notice dated 28.2.2004 sent by the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant filed an appeal/representation dated 5.11.2004, before the Administrator, Chandigarh Administration, but the Appellate Authority had not responded to the said appeal, despite repeated requests, and reminders. He filed a review application, dated 24.6.2005/5.8.2005, which was rejected, vide letter dated 15.9.2005, without giving him a personal hearing. It was further stated that OP No.1 also issued an advertisement for putting the un-allotted houses, including those of MIG-II (Independent) category Nos. 3958 and 3959, Sector 47-D, Chandigarh, to open auction, and invited objections from the concerned persons. The complainant also filed his objections dated 25.8.2005, but the same had not been decided. It was stated that complainant had been harassed continuously and denied the allotment of the applied for MIG-II (Independent) house for the past about three decades for no fault of his own. It was further stated that OP No.1 was deficient in rendering service and indulged into an unfair trade practices. Hence, this complaint was filed.    

3.         Reply was filed by the Ops, wherein, it was admitted that the OP No.1 invited applications in the year 1977, for various categories of dwelling units including MIG (Middle)/I and MIG (Upper)/II Independent houses, in various Sectors of Chandigarh. The last date of submission of applications, was 16.1.1978. It was stated that the tentative cost of the dwelling units of these two categories was Rs.40,000/- & Rs.46,200/- respectively, for which Rs.2500/- & Rs.3000/- respectively were required to be deposited as earnest money. It was further stated that over 1800 applications were received and OP No.1 constructed the dwelling units, in view of the availability of the land, funds & various other factors. It was further stated that 1335 houses were allotted through various draw of lots till 1983 and about 550 applicants were left, in both the categories. It was further stated that in 1981, OP No.2, revised the land use policy and stopped allotting land to OP No.1 for construction of independent houses and, as such, all the applicants were informed that, they could be offered flats, if they so desired, but the complainant alongwith other applicants, filed a Civil Writ Petition No. 4784 of 1981 which was decided on 20.1.92, by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, with a direction for allotment of flat type houses to the remaining applicants preferably within a period of six months. In compliance with the abovesaid order, OP No.1 decided to offer flat type houses to the remaining applicants, on priority basis, in case they opted for the same. It was further stated that OP No.1 intimated the complainant vide letter dated 18.2.1987, it could not construct the independent houses and that it had formulated a housing scheme, for the allotment of 1750 flats, in three categories, and the tentative cost of which was Rs.2.25 lacs, Rs.1.67 lacs & Rs.80,000/- respectively, for which earnest money of Rs.11250/-, Rs.8000/- & Rs.4000/- respectively, was required to be deposited. It was further stated that the earlier registered MIG applicants, were to be given preference, in allotment, if they opted for any of the aforesaid categories of flats by depositing the difference of earnest money with OP No.1 on 5.3.1987. The complainant was intimated about the abovesaid scheme, vide letter dated 18.2.1987, but he did not deposit the difference of earnest money. It was further stated that another letter dated 24.5.1990, through Regd. Post, was sent to him, that the OP No.1 had 2/3 rooms flat ready for possession, and it was decided to offer these flats to the applicants of MIG (Independent) category of 1977-78, and, in case he was interested for the same, he should send his consent by 31.5.1990. This letter was sent to him at his old address. Thereafter the letter was at the correct address of the complainant on 10.7.1990. Another letter dated 7.2.1991 was also sent to him but no response was received from him.  OP No.1 framed a scheme under Mani Majra Housing Scheme, Phase-II (1992), for general public, it was decided to give preference to the allotment of category-IV flats, and a letter dated 17.3.1992 was sent to the complainant, and other applicants, to give their option on the prescribed form, and to make up the initial deposit required under the scheme by the last date i.e. 27.3.1992. Thereafter, another letter dated 4.6.1994, was also sent to him, through Regd. Post, intimating that due to surrender/ cancellation of flats under the Modern Residential Complex, at Mani Majra (Phase-I and Phase-II), approximately 158 flats became available for re-allotment and it was decided to give preference in allotment to the MIG (Independent) registered applicants of 1977-78 and the remaining flats, if any, would be offered to the general public. It was further stated that in 1994, OP No.1 identified 6 MIG (Independent) houses and approx. 57 flats of different categories, in different Sectors, for allotment due to surrender/cancellation and it was decided to offer all these flats to the remaining registered MIG (Independent) applicants of 1977-78. Thereafter, letters were issued to all such pending applicants, to exercise their option by 3.1.1995 and, in case, no option was received by the stipulated date it would be presumed that they were no longer interested in the allotment of flats. However, in compliance with the order dated 18.1.1995 of the Hon’ble High Court in COCP Nos. 489 of 1994 & 870 of 1994, another letter dated 10.3.1995, was issued, in supersession of the letter dated 16.5.1994. A press note dated 27.12.1994, intimating that, as per the directions of the Hon’ble High Court only such unsuccessful applicants were to be included in the draw of lots, who exercised their option, for 6 MIG (Upper) Independent houses, and, accordingly, such applicants were requested to exercise their option, as to whether, they wanted to be included in the draw of lots, for the said 6 independent houses, or not, and if no option was received, the name of such person would not be included in the draw of lots. It was further stated that a public notice in the Tribune, Chandigarh dated 11.3.1995 was also published. A letter dated 10.3.1995 was inadvertently sent at the old address of the complainant. Another letter was sent to the complainant, at his correct address through Process Server, which was received by him, on 4.4.1995 and, thereafter, on 16.4.95 the complainant submitted letter dated 11.3.1995, requesting for the supply of the copy of a order of the Hon’ble High Court. It was further stated that the complainant submitted his option only on 12.5.1995. As the list of the applicants who had opted for independent houses had already been displayed and the draw of lots was being held on 14.5.1995 as per the directions of the Hon’ble High Court, the name of the complainant was not included because he did not exercise the option before the due date. It was further stated that OP No.1 floated housing Scheme (1995) of 504 MIG flats, for the General Public, at Sector 61, and it was decided to give preference to the left out applicants of MIG (Independent) 1977-78 Scheme. A public notice in this regard was issued in the Indian Express, Chandigarh, on 27.8.1995. The last date for the submission of applications was 6.10.1995, the complainant did not apply. It was further stated that OP No.1 finally decided in 1996, to give last and final opportunity to all such left out applicants of MIG (Independent) Category under MIG Housing Scheme 1996, in West of Sector 38, and individual letters were also issued to all the applicants. It was further stated that the complainant submitted a representation on 4.1.1999, stating that House No. 3706 of MIG (Independent) was lying vacant and he may be allotted the same, but the said house could not be allotted to him, because he never opted, in the earlier scheme, and the said house was not a house of MIG (Independent) category, but it was MIG (Indp.) category, which was lying vacant due to pendency of litigation in the Hon’ble High Court. It was further stated that, in pursuance of the decision of the Hon’ble Court to refund the amount of such applicants of MIG (Ind.) Category of 1977 Scheme, who never opted for the allotment of flats in pursuance of a number of opportunities, as stated above, during the period of about 10 years, refund cheques of earnest money were issued alongwith interest @12% p.a. from the date of deposit to the date of refund. As per the abovesaid orders, cheque bearing No. 209520 dated 19.1.1999 for a sum of Rs.10,565/-, was sent to the complainant through Regd.Post on 24.2.1999, but the same was received back undelivered on 11.3.1999. It was again sent to him through Process Server and as per his report, the complainant refused to accept the same. All other allegations, levelled by the complainant, in the complaint, were denied. It was further stated that there was no deficiency, in service, on the part of the OP nor they indulged into unfair trade practice.

4.         OP No.2 did not file any separate reply and adopted the reply filed by OP No.1 (Chandigarh Housing Board).

5.         The parties led evidence, in support of their case.

6.       The learned District Forum, dismissed the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the order.  

7.            Aggrieved by the order, passed by the learned District Forum, the appellant/complainant, has filed the instant appeal. 

8.         We have heard Sh.K.P.Gupta, appellant/complainant, in person, Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate for respondent No.1, Sh.Jatinder Singh, ADA on behalf of respondent No.2, and, have perused the record, carefully and have also gone through the written arguments, alongwith the judgments placed on record by the appellant.

9.            Alongwith the appeal, an application for condonation of delay of 418 days, was filed by the applicant/appellant, wherein, it was stated that he approached the State Legal Services Authority (hereinafter to be called SLSA) for seeking legal aid, in order to file an appeal, against the impugned order dated 28.11.2007 passed by the learned District Forum. On 28.12.2007 SLSA authorized Sh.Pankaj Mohan Kansal, Advocate to plead his case. For this reason, he handed over all the papers/documents to the said Advocate but neither the said Advocate filed the appeal nor returned the documents. Ultimately, he decided to file an appeal himself, but without all the required documents, which were not returned to him by the abovesaid Advocate, it was not possible for him to file the appeal. After procuring the documents and reconstructing the file again, he was able to file an appeal, with a delay of 418 days. It was further stated that delay of 418 days in filing the appeal was not deliberate, but on account of the reasons mentioned above.

10.       Reply to the application for condonation of delay was duly filed by the Chandigarh Housing Board/respondent No.1 and the same was adopted by respondent No.2 i.e. Chandigarh Administration. It was stated that the delay of 418 days, in filing the appeal, had not been explained satisfactorily. It was further stated that there was no sufficient cause for condonation of delay of 418 days. It was further stated that the complainant never went to SLSA with a complaint that the Advocate to whom it authorized to file the appeal, had refused to file the same and also had not returned the abovesaid documents. It was further stated that the complaint filed by the complainant was also time barred, as it mentioned in para No. 18 of the impugned order.

11.       No affidavit of any responsible official of SLSA was filed, as to on which date the case of the appellant was handed over to Mr.Pankaj Mohan Kansal, Advocate, for filing an appeal against the impugned order dated 28.11.2007. There is nothing, on record, as to which documents were allegedly given to Mr.Pankaj Mohan Kansal, for filing the appeal. No complaint was made by the complainant to the Chairperson of SLSA that Mr.Pankaj Mohan Kansal, Advocate, who was allegedly authorized to file an appeal neither filed the same nor returned the documents. Even if, the averments contained, in the application, are assumed to be correct for the sake of arguments, it is not explained, as to what prevented the complainant, in filing the appeal, immediately after Mr.Pankaj Mohan Kansal failed to file the same and return the documents to him. The complainant has concocted a cock and bull story, to explain the delay of 418 days, in filing the appeal. He slept over the matter for about 1 years and 1 month and 23 days, and thereafter, woke up to file the appeal. The principle of law laid down in Smt.Tara Wanti Vs. State of Haryana through Collector, Kurukshetra (AIR 1995 page 32) a case decided by a Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court that sufficient cause within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act ; must be a cause, which is beyond the control of the party, invoking the aid of the Section, and the test to be applied, would be to see, as to whether, it was a bona-fide cause, in as much as, nothing could be considered bona-fide, which is not done with due care and attention. The applicant/appellant neglected to file an appeal, within 30 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy. There was complete inaction and lack of bona-fides, on the part of the complainant. Since deliberate inaction and lack of bonafides are attributable to the applicant/appellant, in filing the appeal, in time, the grounds set up in the application, do not constitute sufficient cause. As such, the application deserves dismissal.

12.       Not only this, the Hon’ble Apex Court in State Bank of India Vs. B.S.Agricultural Industries (I) II (2009) CPJ 29 (SC)  ,considered the provisions of Section 24-A of the Act, and held as under.

            “ 7. Section 24A of the Act, 1986 prescribes limitation period for admission of a complaint by the Consumer Fora thus :

“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.

            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 reasons to be recorded in writing may condone the delay in filing the complaint if sufficient clause is shown. The expression, ‘shall not admit a complaint’ occurring in Section 24-A 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. “

The principle of law laid down in State Bank of India’s Case (supra), no doubt, relates to Section 24-A of the Act, concerning the period of limitation, within which a complaint could be filed. On the same analogy, the aforesaid principle, is applicable to the period of limitation, within which an appeal could be filed under Section 15 of the Act. In the instant case, the applicant/appellant has sought the condonation of delay of 418 days, which is near about 14 times, more than the normal period of filing the appeal. As stated above, in it absence of any sufficient cause, having been established by the applicant/appellant, such a long delay cannot be condoned. The principle of law is fully applicable to the instant case.

13.       When the arguments had already been heard, an application was filed, on 7.7.2011 by the appellant to implead Director, Social Welfare, as a party. We are of the considered opinion that the Director, Social Welfare, is not a necessary party to the appeal. The controversy between the parties, can be completely and effectively adjudicated upon, in absence of Director, Social Welfare. This application has been filed by the appellant to delay the decision, at a highly belated stage. It is accordingly dismissed.

14.       After going through the records, in our opinion, the main grouse of the appellant/complainant was that though he had duly informed the OPs, regarding his change of his address, but instead of sending the letter dated 10.3.1995 regarding giving intimation of the draw of lots, they ( OPs ) sent this letter at his old address purposely in order to prevent him from opting for the inclusion of his name in the draw of lots. It appears that initially inadvertently, OP No.1 sent the letter dated 10.3.1995, to the complainant, at his old address, but later on, this mistake was rectified and another letter was sent through the Process Server. The same was duly received by the complainant on 4.4.1995 i.e. much prior to the date of draw of lots. The complainant had sufficient time to give his option for inclusion of his name, in the draw of lots, but instead of opting for the same, the complainant had submitted a letter dated 11.3.1995 and requested for supply of a copy of the order of the Hon’ble High Court, vide which, OP No.1 was directed to include the name of the unsuccessful applicants, in the draw of lots, who exercised their option for 6 MIG (Upper) Independent houses and in case no option was received, the name of such persons would not be included in the draw of lots. A public notice to this effect, was also published in ‘The Tribune’ Chandigarh dated 11.3.1995. The complainant came to know from the letter received by him, as also from the publication in ‘The Tribune’ that the draw of lots was scheduled to be held on 14.5.1995, but he did not exercise the option by the stipulated date. The name of the complainant, thus, could not be included, in the draw of lots, he submitted his option on 12.5.1995 whereas the final list of the applicants was prepared and displayed on 10.5.1995. Not only this, it is evident that OP No.1 had floated another Housing Scheme (1995) of 504 MIG Flats in Sector 61, for the general public. It was decided by OP No.1 to give preference to the left out applicants of the MIG (Independent) Houses of 1977-78 Scheme provided they applied on the prescribed form, and who had already deposited the requisite amount of earnest money under the 1995 scheme. A public notice was also issued in the Indian Express Chandigarh on 27.8.1995 in which the aforesaid stipulation was made and the last date for submission of the applications  was 6.10.1995, but the complainant did not apply even at that stage. Further more, last and the final opportunity was also given in 1996, to all such left out applicants of MIG (Independent) Category under MIG Housing Scheme, 1995 in Sector 38 (West), Chandigarh provided they applied in the prescribed form with the requisite amount of earnest money. Individuals letters were also issued to the left out applicants including the complainant, but he again instead of applying under the scheme, submitted a representation on 4.1.1999 stating that House No. 3706 of the MIG (Independent) was lying vacant, and he may be allotted the same, but the same could not be allotted to the complainant, as he had never opted in the earlier scheme alongwith other similarly situated applicants. This clearly proves that the appellant throughout remained negligent. It was on account of the fault of the complainant/appellant that he could not be allotted the house or the flat. The District Forum was, thus, right in holding that the OPs were neither deficient in rendering service, nor indulged into unfair trade practice. 

15.       The complaint filed by the complainant was also palpably barred by time. In this context, reference to paragraph No. 18 of the impugned order, which reads as under, is essential.

“18] Annexure C-13 is dated 12.5.1995 while Annexure C-14 is dated 25.9.2000, which show that within this intervening period the complainant has absolutely made no attempt towards the settlement of his grouse with the OPs and preferred to remain silent. This issue would attract Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, pertaining to the period of limitation to file a complaint and goes against him. “

It is evident from the aforesaid para, that the complainant filed the complaint after about 5 years of the occurrence of cause of action, i.e. about 3 years, beyond the normal period of limitation, within which, the complaint could be filed by the complainant, as envisaged by Section 24-A of the Act. The principle of law laid down in State Bank of India’s Case (supra), was, thus, fully applicable to this case. The complaint was liable to be dismissed on the ground alone.

16.       With the foregoing discussion, we have come to the conclusion that there is no deficiency, in service, on the part of OPs and the order passed by the learned District Forum is just, fair and proper. No interference is, thus, called for. The appeal filed by the complainant is dismissed, being barred by time, as also devoid of merit. The order passed by the learned District Forum is upheld.

17.       The parties are left to bear their own costs.  

18.            Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.