2. Brief facts of the case are that the Respondent No. 1 had developed a residential colony in Meerut through Respondent No. 2 in the name of Greater Ganga in which the Complainant/Petitioner had applied for one residential plot of area 251 Sq. Mtr.  As per terms and conditions of Respondent No. 2, the Complainant was to pay the price of plot for Rs. 4,47,822/- with 12% p.a. freehold charges Rs. 53,739/- and balance amount Rs. 23,439/-, thus in total Rs. 5,24,000/-, and this amount was to be deposited by her with the Respondent No. 2. The Complainant stated in the Complaint that she had paid the total amount to Respondent No. 2 which was informed to the Respondents whereupon the Respondents executed a Sale Deed for the residential Plot No. 23 in favour of Complainant and the possession of the plot was also given. Since then she has been holding possession over the said Plot and is therefore a Consumer of Respondents. She further stated that her husband was posted as Secretary in the Meerut Development Authority on whom undue pressure was built up by the Authority and threats were issued of cancelling the Sale Deed, and he was scared of lodging an FIR.  On the basis of such threat, a Pay Order dated 29.07.2006 for Rs. 5,92,000/- was taken which was drawn on Syndicate Bank Meerut. The same was deposited by the Complainant with the Respondent No. 1. Being aggrieved by this illegal act of Vice Chairman of the Authority, the Complainant sent Notices to both the Respondents and demanded the amount of Rs. 5,92,000/- with 14% interest per annum. However, there was no response from either side. She therefore filed her complaint before District Forum, Meerut. 

3. The District Forum vide its Order dated 17.10.2015 dismissed the Complaint. The relevant extracts of the Order of the District Forum are set out as below –

“In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, since complainant is not the consumer of Respondent No. 1 Meerut Development Authority and further it is clear from the complaint that the same is barred by limitation. Hence the objections filed by Respondent No. 1 Meerut Development Authority are liable to be accepted and the complaint filed by complainant is liable to be dismissed.

 

ORDER

The preliminary objections filed by Respondent No. 1 Meerut Development Authority are allowed and the suit filed by complainant is found not maintainable legally and hence dismissed.”

4. Aggrieved by the Order of the District Forum, the Petitioner filed her Appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission dismissed the Appeal of the Petitioner vide impugned Order dated 01.09.2017. The relevant extracts of the Order of the State Commission are set out as below - 

“On the basis of above discussion we hold the view that the order passed by Distt Forum is as per law and does not require any interference.

5. Aggrieved by the Order of the State Commission, the Petitioner filed the present Revision Petition alongwith an application (IA No. 3266 of 2020) for condonation of delay of 822 days in filing the Revision Petition, in which it has been claimed that the Petitioner was not aware of the Order passed by the State Commission as she was in the United States of America for a period of 3 months and when she came to India in December 2017, she could not contact her Counsel as he was hospitalized for a period of 4 months; That it is only when the Petitioner made a personal visit to Lucknow in May, 2018 only then she was made aware about the passing of the judgment in her Appeal.

6. After having received Notice, the Respondent No. 1 appeared and directly raised the preliminary objection that there was a delay of 822 days in filing the Revision Petition, which objection was recorded by the Division Bench in its Order dated 14.01.2022. Consequently the instant application seeking condonation of delay, which has been vehemently opposed by the Respondent, is being taken up for consideration. 

7. It needs to be remembered first of all that the original Complaint filed by the Petitioner had been dismissed by the Ld. District Forum which found it to be barred by limitation. The Appeal filed by the Petitioner to challenge such dismissal was also dismissed by the Ld. State Commission which found no illegality in the Order of the Ld. District Forum.  Thereafter, the Petitioner approached this Commission in seeking to challenge the concurrent decisions of both the Ld. Fora below.  Along with the Revision Petition, she filed the instant Application seeking condonation of the delay of 822 days in filing the Revision, although the period of actual delay happens to be one day more i.e., 823 days.

8. The relevant circumstances and grounds justifying the delay have been narrated by the Petitioner in para 3 of the Application which is set out in its entirety as below –   

 “3. That, the present application is being filed for condoning the delay of _________.  That the below mentioned reasons/ explanation for such delay are as follows:-

a) That the Hon’ble state consumer dispute redressal commission passed the order and judgment dated 01/09/2017 in appeal No. 2487/2015.  However, the details of the passing of the judgment dated 01/09/2017 was never informed by the revisionist’s counsel of the state commission to the revisionist as the revisionist was in United States of America for a period of 3 months as her son resides in America.

b) As and when the revisionist came to India December 2017, She could not contact her legal counsel as her legal counsel was hospitalised for a period of 4 months.  The counsel never even picked up the phone calls of the revisionist.

c) It is only when the revisionist made a personal visit to Lucknow, U.P., in May, 2018, and then only she was made aware about the passing of the judgment in her own appeal.  It is pertinent to point out here that the revisionist is a resident of Noida, U.P. and thus, could only gather information and records of the entire appeal in the month of May, 2018.

d) Thereafter, the revisionist after knowing about the dismissal of the appeal, made personal visits and requests to the Department of respondent No. 1- MDA for refunding the excessive amounts so deposited with them.  The Department of the authority dillydallied the entire situation and made her run from pillar to post for a couple of months giving false hope that she would get a refund.

e) Aggrieved, the revisionist also tried to make requests to respondent No. 2- M/s. Godwin construction private limited.  The revisionist tried to make a request to obtain the office record from the offices of respondent No. 2, as to whether the amount deposited by her with respect to plot No. 23 has been deposited with respondent No. 1 or not.

f) However both the respondents in their own way rejected her multiple requests and failed to give any records for the payment made to them in view of the allotment for plot No. 23, greater Ganga scheme, Meerut.  This whole situation of request made by the revisionist directly with both the respondent took about 8 months in total.

g) Thereafter, the revisionist made a request to the office of Chief Secretary, state of Uttar Pradesh to look into this dispute as admittedly the revisionist has made double payments for the price of allotment.  However, the office of the Chief Secretary also ignored the request of the revisionist.

h) Under constant duress and rejection of the genuine request, the revisionist was hospitalised for 1 month as she fell unconscious because of hypertension and depression suffered during the aforementioned time period and was prescribed to take part in any activities which can make a hypertensive and depressed as that could ultimately lead to brain haemorrhage or cardiac arrest. 

i) The revisionist after completely healing, collected all the records from the district forum as well as the state commission, Lucknow, UP which is a prerequisite for filing revision petition before the Hon’ble National Commission, and engaged the present lawyer.

j) Without wasting further time, the revisionist is filing the present revision petition.”

9. The impugned Order of the Ld. State Commission was passed on 01.09.2017, while the Revision Petition was filed more than 2½ years later on 04.03.2020.  In paragraph 3(a) of the application as reproduced above, it is seen that that it was the specific averment of the Petitioner that she was not informed about the details of the passing of the impugned Order dated 01.09.2017 by her Counsel in the State Commission, as she was in the United States of America for a period of 03 months. Thereafter in paragraph 3(b), the Petitioner has stated categorically that she returned to India in December 2017, but could not contact her Counsel as he was hospitalised for a period of 04 months, and never even picked up her phone calls. Thereafter according to the Petitioner, she came to know about the impugned Order during her personal visit to Lucknow, in the month of May 2018. She then made personal visits and requests to the Respondents for refunding of the amount deposited with the Respondent No. 1, and to obtain the office record from the offices of the Respondent No. 2 on whether the amount deposited by her with respect to the plot No. 23 had been deposited with the Respondent No. 1 or not. But such multiple requests made by her were rejected by the Respondents, after which she made a request to the office of the Chief Secretary, State of Uttar Pradesh, to look into the dispute, but to no avail, after which she thereafter had been hospitalised for a month.

10. As the impugned Order had been passed on 01.09.2017, so in the normal course the Revision Petition should have been filed within 90 days from that date, or otherwise from the date of knowledge of the Order, and the time taken in obtaining Certified Copy of the same. Now, as already seen, it was the specific case of the Petitioner that she was not informed about the Order by her Counsel as she was in the United States of America for 03 months at the relevant time, and that she had returned to India in the month of December 2017. But even thereafter she did not get any response from her Counsel as he had been hospitalised for a period of 04 months, and that she thereafter learnt about the impugned Order only in the month of May 2018.

11. In view of the vehement objection to the delay of 822 days in filing the Revision Petition, as also the background that even the original complaint of the Petitioner had been dismissed on same the ground of delay, which Order was also found to be proper by the Appellate Authority, this Commission on 31.08.2023 granted liberty to Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner to file the Affidavit of her concerned Counsel in the State Commission along with Medical Record of his hospitalisation at the relevant time, as also the Passport of the Petitioner herself showing the date of departure from, and arrival in India at the relevant time.

12. On the next date (19.10.2023), however, Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that his client was unable to comply with the previous Order as the concerned Counsel in the State Commission had declined to submit his Affidavit or even make available the medical records of his hospitalisation at the relevant time, as claimed in the Petitioner’s application. The Petitioner’s Counsel further submitted that he was also unable to show her Passport indicating the dates of departure and arrival, as had been directed in the previous Order. However on the very next day (20.10.2023), photocopies of the Petitioner’s Passport were filed on her behalf. A careful perusal of the same goes to show that she had firstly travelled abroad in the year 2012, and thereafter in 2014 from 24th April to 04.09.2014. Thereafter in the year 2015, she remained abroad between 08.07.2015 to 23rd of July 2015.  Her last visit abroad happens to have been between 15.11.2018 to 01.04.2019.

13. As such there is no record whatsoever to show that the Petitioner had ever travelled abroad at any time in the entire years of 2016 or 2017, although it was her specific case that she was in the United States of America for 3 months when the impugned Order was passed on 01.09.2017, and that she had returned to India only in December 2017. Similarly she has been unable to file the requisite Affidavit or any other document showing hospitalisation of Ld. Counsel in the State Commission for a period of 04 months as also specifically claimed in her application, in spite of the specific direction of this Commission to file such documents.

14. It, therefore, becomes crystal clear that the grounds relied upon by the Petitioner in seeking to condone the delay of 823 days in filing the present Revision Petition are not at all convincing.  Even otherwise, her original complaint had been dismissed on the very ground that it was manifestly barred by limitation. By her own case, an illegal demand of Rs. 5,92,000/- had been raised by the Respondent Authority on 27.7.2006, which amount was then deposited on behalf of the Petitioner two days later on 29.7.2006.  In Para 5 of her original complaint, she had claimed that she had first demanded back return of such amount allegedly taken from her under threat to her husband who himself holding the post of Secretary in the Respondent Authority on 10.8.2006.  Thereafter, she claimed to have demanded such repayment by her letters dated 12.3.2012 and 12.3.2012 in her complaint, but in her Affidavit (Annexure – AA 1) separately sworn in support of the complaint those were actually dated 12.3.2012 and 25.3.2012 respectively, and there was no mention of her original demand on 10.8.2006 in the said Affidavit which had otherwise pleaded in the complaint. 

15. Further, by her own case, possession of the plot in question had already been taken by the Petitioner. Her husband was allegedly pressurised into making an extra payment of Rs. 5,92,000/-. So, irrespective of the possession having been delivered against full payment, whether the Petitioner continued to have any Consumer- Service provider relationship with the Meerut Development Authority or not, the fact remains that if at all any wrong payment had been realised from her after giving her possession of the plot, the limitation to seek its refund would have been within two years from the date of deposit 29.7.2006.  But the complaint was filed 08 years later in 2014.  It is well settled that repeated demands made to a Respondent/Defendant which are not complied, cannot extend the limitation prescribed according to the statute.  So the complaint when filed was itself barred by limitation of nearly 06 years on account of which it was rightfully dismissed, and so was the Appeal preferred against such dismissal in the Ld. State Commission.

16. For the aforesaid reasons, this Commission finds no ground to interfere with the Orders passed by Both the Ld. For a below, since the present Revision Petition is also found manifestly barred by limitation, and also without any merits.  Parties to bear their own costs.

17. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed off as having been rendered infructuous.