C.VISWANATH

1. The present Revision Petition is filed by the Petitioner under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Order passed by the Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as the “State Commission”) in FAIA No. 377/2016 in FASR 1144/2016 dated 20.12.2016.

2. Complainant/Respondent was allotted a Flat of 798 sq. feet in “Sahabhavan Township”  at Bandlaguda Village, R.R. District by the Petitioner for a consideration of Rs. 16,10,000/-. The Respondent paid Rs. 5,000/- towards Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) and Rs. 5,46,000/-  towards the cost of the Flat. The Respondent was to pay the remaining amount of Rs. 7,54,000/- to the Petitioner. The Petitioner states that he informed the Respondent  on 27.09.2011 that the construction of the Flat was completed and ready for occupation. Respondent stated before the District Forum that though the Petitioner claimed that flat was completed, amenities as promised in the brochure were not provided. Hence, he stopped payment

of the balance amount. The Petitioner cancelled the allotment on account of non-payment. In the July 2012, the Respondent enquired the Petitioner about the status of the project. The Petitioner informed him, vide letter 23.07.2012, that the application status as cancelled. Immediately, after receiving the aforesaid letter, the Respondent approached the Petitioner asking him for return of his advance of Rs. 5,46,000/- but  the Petitioner refused to return the same. The Petitioner conveyed to the Respondent that he will return the deposited amount after deducting Rs. 1,70,000/-. A Complaint was, thus, filed by the Respondent alleging deficiency of service on the part of the Petitioner.

3. The Complaint was contested by the Petitioner in the District Forum stating that the Respondent was allotted the said Flat in the year 2008 for Rs. 16,10,000/- but  the Respondent failed to pay the required  amount, despite issue of several reminders  and final notice dated 03.04.2012.  Petitioner informed him, vide letter dated 25.05.2012, about the cancellation of allotment of the said Flat and forfeiture of the amount paid by the Complainant. It is further stated that as per the “terms and conditions” there is “no clause” for refund of processing fees.

4. District Forum vide order 20.07.2015, partly allowed the Complaint directing the Petitioner to refund Rs. 5,41,000/- to the Respondent within 2 months of the said order on the ground that both the parties have not filed the “terms and conditions” relating to allotment and cancellation of the Flat Thus, the matter was decided on the basis of “principle of natural justice”. It was found that Respondent was also at fault as he did not inform the Petitioner about his decision to withdraw and cancel the allotment of the flat. At the same time there was negligence on the part of the Petitioner as till date they have not completed the flats and are not fit for occupation. Therefore, the Respondent was allowed to take back his amount after deduction of EMD and processing charges from the Petitioner.

5. The Petitioner filed an Appeal before the State Commission against the orders passed by the District Forum, Ranga Reddy. The State Commission, vide order dated 20.12.2016, dismissed the appeal on the ground that the Petitioner had not given “sufficient cause” for condoning delay of 177 days in filing the said Appeal. In the application for condonation of delay, it was only stated that the Post of the Managing Director, Rajiv Swagruha Corporation Limited was vacant, and therefore 

there was a delay in entrusting the matter to their standing counsel. The, Petitioner obtained permission from the In-charge Managing Director and thereafter referred the matter to the standing counsel, due to which delay of 177 days was there  in filing the Appeal. Further, being aggrieved by the order of the State Commission, the Petitioner filed the present Revision Petition.

6.  The grounds for filing the present Revision Petition are stated as below:

• State Commission has erred in dismissing the Appeal solely on the grounds of delay.

• It is an admitted position that till date the Respondent has not made the entire payment and therefore there is no cause of action to file a Consumer Case on account of cancellation in accordance to Rules.

7. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Respondent in Person. They reiterated their respective contentions as stated above. We have also carefully gone through the evidence placed on record.

8. There has been a delay of 68 days in filing the present Revision Petition by the Petitioner.  I.A. No. 1752 of 2017 was filed by the Petitioner for condonation of delay of 68 days, by stating that delay occurred because the copy of State Commission Order was received in the first week of January 2017 and then the post of Managing Director, Rajiv Swagruha Corporation Limited was vacant. The, Petitioner had to obtain permission from the In-charge Managing Director, Housing Board which led to delay in filing the present Revision Petition.   

9. In our opinion, no proper reason was mentioned for such delay by the Petitioner. From the reasons mentioned above, it can be stated that Petitioner has mentioned the same reason for delay in filing the Petitions before State Commission as well this Commission. The State Commission rightly held that the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was enacted for speedy redressal of consumer disputes. Delay cannot be allowed to occur in a routine way and sufficient cause should be made out with specific reasons supported by material.  These are only delay tactics in order to avoid compliance of the order of District Forum passed in favour of the Respondent.

10. We have gone through the orders passed by the State Commission as well as by the District Forum in this matter. On careful consideration of the entire record, we are convinced that the District Forum as well as State Commission have thoroughly gone through all the evidence and given justified reasoning while passing their orders.

11. In view of the above, the present Revision Petition is dismissed and orders passed by both District Forum as well as State Commission are confirmed.