APPEARED AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENTS

PRONOUNCED ON : 22^nd JANUARY 2018

O R D E R

PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER

          This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, challenging the impugned order dated 21.04.2010, passed by the U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’) in two cross appeals, i.e., Appeal No. 1527/2008 and Appeal No. 1907/2009, filed before them by both the parties, challenging the order dated 31.05.2008, passed by the District Forum in consumer complaint No. 729/2004, filed by the present petitioner.  The District Forum vide their order dated 31.05.2008, directed the respondent/Opposite Party (OP) Lucknow Development Authority to allot the plot to the petitioner/complainant and hand over the possession of the same and get the conveyance deed executed.  However, the State Commission vide impugned order, allowed the appeal filed by the OP Authority and dismissed the consumer complaint and directed the refund of the amount deposited by the complainant to her alongwith interest. 

2.       Briefly stated, the facts of the case as stated in the consumer complaint No. 729/2004 by the petitioner/complainant Anita Tewari, are that she approached the OP Lucknow Development Authority (for short ‘Authority’) for allotment of a plot, upon which plot No. C-5/195 with area of 200 sq. mtr. at Vipul Khand, Gomati Nagar, Lucknow was allotted to her.  She made full payment of the cost of the plot with the OP Authority and a conveyance deed was registered by the OP Authority in the name of the complainant at the office of Sub Registrar, Lucknow.  However, the possession of the said plot was never delivered to the complainant.  The complainant alleged that the area of the plot on the spot was much less than the area sold by the opposite party vide sale-deed dated 15.10.1998.  On repeated requests of the complainant, the Property Officer of the OP issued letter dated 16.08.2000 and 19.10.2000 to the Executive Engineer, with directions to submit detailed report about the shortfall in the area.  It is further stated in the complaint that the complainant approached the Vice-Chairman of the OP Authority, who agreed to allot another plot in the same locality with an area of 115.5 sq. mtr. at the prices prevailing in the year 1998.  However, the said plot was not given to her.  The Vice-Chairman of the OP also issued a letter dated 26.08.2003 to the Secretary of the OP, directing him to deliver the possession of the plot C-5/195 to her.  However, the OP issued a letter to her that house No. 5/76 had been allotted to her.  However, the possession of the said house was also not given to her.  The complainant filed the consumer complaint in question, seeking directions to the OP to deliver the physical possession of plot no. C-5/195, Vipul Khand to her and also to pay interest @21% p.a. on the amount deposited by her for the period of delay.

3.       The complaint was resisted by the OP Authority by filing a written statement before the District Forum, in which they stated that Plot No. C-5/195 had never been allotted to her and the said plot did not exist in the sanctioned lay-out plan of the scheme made by them.  The OP also stated that the registered deed produced by the complainant was a false and fabricated document and they had never executed the said registered deed in favour of the complainant.  The OP Authority alleged fraud against the complainant.  The OP Authority also stated that correct facts were not in the knowledge of their Vice-Chairman, when he issued his letter.  The OP Authority also stated that house No. 5/76, Vipul Khand had been allotted to some other person. 

4.       The District Forum, after considering the averments made by the parties, passed the following order:-

“It is ordered to the defendant to allot a plot in the developed sector at Gomati Nagar of the equivalent area in that very cost in alternate within the period of one month of the Judgment, get its registry done and hand over possession, for which, the complainant shall not be responsible to pay any amount.  The defendant is directed to pay Rs.5,000/- against compensation and Rs.2,000/- against cost of the case of the complainant.  Judgment be complied within three months.”

5.       Being aggrieved against the order passed by the District Forum, the complainant as well as the OP Authority filed appeals before the State Commission, which were decided vide impugned order dated 21.04.2010.  The appeal filed by the complainant, seeking enhancement of relief given by the District Forum was dismissed vide this impugned order, whereas the appeal filed by the OP Authority was allowed and the order passed by the District Forum was set aside.  A direction was given to the OP Authority to refund a sum of ₹80,498/- to the complainant alongwith interest @6% p.a. with effect from the date of deposit till realisation.  Being aggrieved against the said order, the complainant is before this Commission by way of the present revision petition. 

6.       The impugned order passed by the State Commission is dated 21.04.2010, whereas the present revision petition has been filed on 17.08.2016, meaning thereby that there is a delay of 2204 days in filing the present revision petition.  An application for condonation of delay has been filed, saying that a certified copy of the order dated 21.04.2010 was not issued by the State Commission to the Complainant.  The previous counsel of the complainant was present before the State Commission when the impugned order was pronounced, but the said counsel did not make efforts to obtain certified copy of the order.  It is further stated that the husband of the petitioner suffered from serious cardiac problem and was on continuous treatment.  There were some other mishaps too in the family of the petitioner and hence, the petition could not be filed in time.  The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that since the consumer complaint filed by them had been allowed by the District Forum, they are entitled to get a plot from the OP Authority at the prices prevailing in the year 1998. 

6.       In reply, the learned counsel for the OP Authority stated that no valid ground had been mentioned by the petitioner to explain the inordinate delay of 2204 days in filing the present revision petition.  The petition deserved to be dismissed on this ground alone.  It was nowhere clear as to how, the petitioner remained silent for about 7 years.  The learned counsel further stated that the plot in question was never allotted to the complainant.  The sale-deeds etc. were forged documents.  In fact, the OP Authority had never executed any sale-deed in favour of the complainant. 

7.       We have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us.

8.       A perusal of the impugned order of the State Commission reveals that Mr. Sanjeev Bahadur Srivastava, Advocate was present on behalf of the petitioner/complainant before the State Commission, when the impugned order was pronounced.  It is not understood, therefore, as to why the complainant did not take steps to challenge the said order in time before this Commission.  The grounds taken in the application for condonation of delay do not offer any cogent and convincing explanation for the delay of 2204 days in filing the revision petition.  Even if the husband of the petitioner was suffering from medical problems, or even if the petitioner lost some members of the family, it does not explain adequately that there could be a huge delay of 2204 days in filing the revision petition.  The petition, therefore, deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay alone.  We are supported in this contention by a judgment by the Hon’ble Apex 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 Fora.”

9.       Now, coming to the merits of the case, the State Commission has brought out that the Estate Officer of the OP Authority denied having signed the sale-deed in question.  There was no reference about the allotment of the plot or sale-deed etc. in the record maintained by the OP Authority.  The complainant also could not produce any allotment order in her favour issued by the OP Authority, vide which the allotment is stated to have been issued in her name.  The State Commission also stated that the Plot No. C-5/195 was not identifiable at the site, nor it had been carved out in the lay-out plan of Vipul Khand.  Regarding the other plot No. 5/76, the said house had been allotted to some other person Raj Kishor Mandal. 

10.       After considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, it is concluded that the revision petition is liable to be dismissed on grounds of limitation as well as on merits.  The order passed by the State Commission is based on a correct appreciation of the situation on record.  The State Commission also directed the refund of the amount deposited with the OP alongwith interest.  There is no justification for modification of the said order in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction.  The present revision petition is, therefore, ordered to be dismissed on grounds of limitation as well as on merits.  The impugned order passed by the State Commission is upheld.  There shall be no order as to costs.