PER JUSTICE J.M. MALIK

1.       This common order shall decide the two above said Revision Petitions, which are between Himachal Pradesh Housing & Urban Development Authority (in short, HIMUDA) & its functionaries and two complainants who are both brothers namely- Sh. Rohit Lahori and  Sh. Sanjay Lahori. The facts of both the cases are similar and same questions of Law swirl around both the cases.

2.       There is delay of 44 days’ each, in filing the said Revision Petitions.  Arguments heard on application for condonation of delay.  In view of the grounds mentioned therein, we hereby condone the delay in both the Revision Petitions.  We will take up the facts from the Revision Petition No. 3603 of 2013, which will be applicable in both the Revision Petitions.

3.       Counsel for the parties present.  Arguments heard.  Sh. Rohit Lahori filed an application form and submitted the same before the respondents-Himachal Pradesh Housing & Urban Development Autholrity & Ors.  He was informed that the price of type –A flat was Rs. 2,75,000/-.  He was asked to submit a draft for Rs. 10,000/-  He made the payment by draft on 22.08.2006.  Subsequently, he received a communication from the OPs that he was allotted type A flat in block No. 5 which would cost a sum of Rs. 4,59,782/- vide letter dated 22.08.2006.  The complainant sent protest letter that the price was earlier intimated to him as Rs. 2,75,000/-.  Counsel for the petitioner/complainant insists that they have taken the information from R.T.I., which mentions that during the year 2005-2006, the price was Rs. 2,75,000/- and the OPs were charging a sum of about Rs.2,00,000/- more.  Thereafter, many protest letters were sent to the OPs but the OPs did not agree.  It is, thus, clear that the cause of action arose on 22.08.2006.  The case is clearly barred by time.  The case of the OPs neatly dovetail with the authority reported in State Bank of India Vs. B.S. Agricultural Industries,  2009 CTJ 481 (SC) (CP) = JT 2009 (4) SC 191, wherein it was held;

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 cause is shown. The expression, ‘shall not admit a complaint’ occurring in Section 24A 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.”

At para No.13 of the said judgment, it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that;

“The term “cause of action” is neither defined in the Act nor in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 but is of wide import. It has different meanings in different contexts, that is when used in the context of territorial jurisdiction or limitation or the accrual of right to sue. Generally, it is described as “bundle of facts”., which if proved or admitted entitle the plaintiff to the relief prayed for. Pithily stated, “cause of action” means the cause of action for which the suit is brought. “Cause of action” is cause of action which gives occasion for and forms the foundation of the suit. In the context of limitation with reference to a fire insurance policy, undoubtedly, the date of accrual of cause of action has to be the date on which the fire breaks out.”

4.       Similar view was taken by the the Hon’ble Apex Court in Kandimalla Raghavaiah & Co. Vs. National Insurance Co.Ltd., & Anr., 2009 CTJ 951.

5.       Recently, in a case, titled as Dolphin Offshore Enterprises (I) Ltd. Vs. United India Insurance Co.Ltd., the Hon’ble Apex Court, in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 9307 of 2013 filed by petitioner, Dolhpin Offshore  Enterprises  (I) Ltd., decided on 08.03.2013,   was  pleased  to hold :-

“We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and  perused  the  record.  In our opinion, the reasons assigned by the State Commission and the National Commission,  for  holding  that the complaint was  barred  by time,  are correct.  It is not in dispute that  the  claim  made by the petitioner was repudiated by the  respondent, vide communication dated 30.10.2002, and the complaint was filed on  25.05.2006, i.e., after  three years and five months of repudiation of the claim. Therefore, there is no escape from the conclusion that the complaint was barred by time.  This view finds support from the judgments of this court in HUDA Vs. B.K. Sood (2006) 1 SCC 164, SBI Vs. B.S.Agricultural Industries (I) (2009) 5 SCC 121, Kandimalla Raghavaiah Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (2009) 7 SCC 768 and V.N.Shrikhande (Dr.) Vs. Anita Sena Fernandes (2011) 1 SCC 53”.

6.       The second question which falls for consideration is that the house was ready for possession on 11.10.2007.  The OPs, without taking any consent from the complainant, handed over the possession of that flat to someone else, due to emergency.  It is alleged that that flat stood sagged and another allottee was temporarily shifted to the flat in question.

7.       The District Forum allowed the complaint and awarded           Rs. 50,000/- as compensation and Rs. 10,000/- as costs of the case.  The District Forum further directed that OPs would charge only Rs.2,75,000/- but the State Commission held that that as the case was filed on 11.01.2011, the complaint was barred by time.  The complainant was asked to deposit Rs. 4,59,782/-.  That order cannot be faulted in both the cases.

8.       However, the bizarre conduct of the OPs is difficult to fathom.  The other allottee remained in possession of flat for three years, without taking consent from the complainant.  The complainant got a second-hand house for the price of Rs. 4,59,782/-.  Again, OPs’ pick and choose policy is not understandable.  The people were allotted the house in the year 2005-2006 and the brochure also mentioned that the amount was Rs. 2,75,000/-.  Within few months, it was raised by about Rs.2,00,000/-.  Moreover, the compensation granted by the Fora below is on the lower side.  The snooty and arrogant attitude of the OPs is difficult to understand.  It is not understood how they can give the possession of a second-hand house to a person, after charging the full amount.

9.       Consequently, we partly accept the Revision Petitions and enhance the compensation from Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 1,50,000/- and also enhance the litigation charges from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 25,000/-, in each of the case.

10.     Both the Revision Petitions stand disposed of.