1.    This Revision Petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the “Act”) against State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar (‘State Commission’) Order dated 15.12.2015 in FA Nos. 484/2011 and 558/2010 dismissing the Appeal and upholding the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Patna (‘District Forum’) order dated 28.09.2010 in CC No. 486/ 2007.

2.      For the convenience, the parties are referred to as placed in the original Complaint filed before the District Forum.

3.    Brief facts of the case, as per the complainant, are that he was allotted Middle Income Group (MIG) House No. 32 on rent with a condition that maintenance will be borne by him. Later, the house was allotted to him after adjustment of the rent cum purchase and amount of rent was adjusted in the cost of the house. The agreement was made that the cost of house is provisional and allotee may be asked for more amount but the agreement did not contain the amount of rent adjusted in the cost of the house will also be given by the allotee. The last demand of Rs. 17,984.00/- was paid by the complainant vide letter No. 33832 dated 03.09.1992 and at the time of transfer of the house, OP asked him to deposit  Rs.60,265/- without any justification and it was deposited by him for transfer of the house on 22.09.2001. Accordingly, OP Board executed registered lease deed in his favour on 22.10.2001. The Complaint filed a complaint in the District Forum, Patna seeking refund of Rs. 60,265/- with interest.

4.      In its written version, OP contended that the complainant was allotted MIG House No. 32 at Lohianagar, Patna on rent by the Housing Dept, Govt of Bihar, vide letter No. 6161 dated 29.11.1969 for Rs. 110 per month. The Housing Board decided to convert such properties into hire-purchase agreements for existing tenants In 1972. Vide letter No. 7671 dated 22.08.1975, the house was allotted to the complainant with an initial cost of Rs. 45,600/- as of 30.06.1974, subject to revaluation, and adjusted for rent already paid. Upon review in 1984, the Board decided not to adjust rent due to maintenance expenses. Citing the Patna High Court decision in WP No. 4302/96 it was contended that the allottees must pay the building cost with interest. As per the agreement dated 08.10.1975, the complainant paid Rs. 85,604/- between 1975 and 1992 against the cost of Rs. 51,265/- and accrued interest. After adjustments, Rs. 60,265/- remained outstanding, which on 22.09.2001 he paid without protest, following which the lease deed was registered on 22.10.2001. If the complainant had any grievances, the same should have addressed under Clause 20 of the agreement by arbitration.

5.    The learned District Forum vide Order dated 28.09.2010, allowed the complaint with the following finding:

“On the basis of arguments, our discussions and findings we are of the opinion that the decision of Housing Board not to adjust the rent with cost of the house on 14.09.1984 admittedly have not been communicated to the complainant and has rightly been argued by the complainant that had he been informed in the year 1984 regarding the aforesaid decision, he would have deposited the amount in 1984 itself for avoiding further interest or in other words interest would have been paid for avoiding further interest or in other words interest would have been paid for the aforesaid date only. The argument of the opposite parties that Rs.60,265 has been deposited at the time of registration 22.10.2001 without any protest is not accepted as the aforesaid amount has been deposited by the complainant under duress having the fear of no registration of the flat for his living. Thus we find deficiency on the part of the Opposite Parties in not communicating the decision of 14.09.1984 to the complainant and even then realizing the interest thereafter. Thus in our view opposite party, the Housing Board is not entitled to realize the interest from the complainant from 14.09.1984 till registration of the lease deed on 22.06.2001.

         Accordingly we direct the opposite parties to refund the amount of interest from 14.09.1984 to 22.06.2001 to the complainant within two months from the date of receipt of the order failing which opposite parties shall be liable to pay interest of the aforesaid amount (to be calculated) @ 9% per annum till final payment. However there shall be no order as to cost.”

6.      Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the parties filed First Appeal Nos. 484/2011 and 558/2010. The State Commission vide Order dated 15.12.15 dismissed both the Appeals and upheld the Order passed by the District Forum, with the following observations: -

“Having, Considered the submissions of parties and on perusal of the order passed by the District Forum; it appears that the District Forum has considered the matter in right perspective. Decision of the appellant Board not to adjust the rent with cost of the house on 14.09.1984 admittedly have not been communicated to the complainant. If it was informed to the complainant regarding the Board 1984 decision, he would had deposited the amount in 1984 itself avoiding further interest. The respondent deposited the amount Rs. 60,265/- at the time oi registration on 22.10.2001 without any protest, having the fear of no registration of that house. The appellant Board does not seem entitled to realise the interest from the complainant from 14.09.1984 till registration of the house on 22.06.2001. The order passed by the District Forum seems proper and justified and we do not find any cogent reason to interfere in it. In the result, the District Forum order in affirmed and both the appeals are dismissed.”

7.      Dissatisfied by the State Commission order, OP filed the present Revision Petition before this Commission with the following prayer:

“a. set aside the impugned judgment/order dated 15.12.2015
passed by the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar, Patna in Appeal NO. 484
OF 2011 AND 558 OF 2010,

b. call for the record of the case; and

c. award the costs of these proceedings in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents;

d. pass such other and further orders as are deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

8.      The learned Counsel for the complainant reiterated the facts of the complaint and urged the Order of the lower fora was well reasoned. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the OP reiterated the arguments previously presented before both lower fora, the averments made in the written statement and grounds taken in the revision petition. He averred that the complaint should be dismissed as it was barred by limitation.

9.      I have examined the pleadings and associated documents placed on record and rendered thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsels for both the parties.

10.    It is the contention of the complainant that the OP Housing Board’s decision dated 14.09.1984 not to adjust the rent towards the cost of the house was not communicated to him. The same was also asserted to be admitted by the OP in the order of the learned State Commission. The State Commission considered that the complainant rightly argued that had he been informed of this decision in 1984, he would have deposited the amount at that time itself to avoid the accrual of further interest, thereby limiting the payment of interest to the amount due as of that date. The contention of the OPs was that the complainant deposited Rs. 60,265/- on 22.10.2001 at the time of registration without protest. This contention was negated by the State Commission. Based on the evidence produced before the lower fora, both the District forum and the State Commission held that the complainant made the deposit under duress, driven by the fear that the flat’s registration, essential for his residence, would otherwise not be completed. From the record, it is seen that a cause of action for the complainant arose on 22.10.2001 when he deposited Rs. 60,265/- allegedly under protest and duress. Thus, the statutory period for filing the consumer complaint was within two years therefrom. However, it was filed before the District Forum in December 2007, after six years of delay. This delay could have been condoned had sufficient cause for such delay been established. However, plain reading of the impugned Orders shows that no ground for delay had been pleaded. Yet, the consumer complaint was decided on merits, without necessary deliberations on the assertion of OP on the protracted delay. Neither of the impugned orders of the learned District Forum or the learned State Commission discussed the matter of limitation, despite the same being raised and argued by the OP.

11.    It is a settled position of law that a complainant cannot be allowed to sleep on his rights without any reasonable explanation. While such protracted delay was not explained, furthermore, there was no evidence on record to demonstrate that the complainant made the said payment under duress or coercion. Even the impugned orders contained no reference any letter of protest submitted by the complainant. Instead, the findings appeared to be based solely on considerations, which are unsupported by evidence.

12.  In light of the above discussion, I am of the view that there is material irregularity in the lower fora orders as the complaint ought not to have been decided on merits, without first determining the implication of unexplained protracted delay at the first place. Consequently, the learned State Commission order in Appeal Nos. 484/2011 and 558/2010 dated 15/12/2015 are set aside and CC No. 486/2007 is dismissed. RP No. 2320 of 2017 is allowed.

13.    Considering the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

14.    Pending applications, if any, are disposed of accordingly.