PER JUSTICE J.M. MALIK

1.          There is a delay of 65 days in filing this revision petition. At the very outset counsel for the petitioner admits that due to his mistake, the delay was caused.  We are partly satisfied with his arguments because there are other reasons as well. We turn to the application for condonation of delay.  The petitioners have explained the delay in Para No. 3 of the application for condonation of delay, which runs as follows:-

“It is submitted that the Counsel for the Petitioner received the case file from the department on 07.11.2012 within the limitation period and counsel for the Petitioner got the revision petition drafted and it was read to be filed.  However the documents and case file of the present matter got lost during the shifting of the Petitioner’s counsel.  It is submitted that despite efforts the file could not be traced.  That therefore the file has to be reconstructed and voluminous record were got translated and typed again.  Immediately, thereafter the present petition is filed.  However due to aforesaid extraordinary circumstances there is a delay in the present matter.”

2.      This is a fragile excuse.  This is vague and evasive explanation which keeps many facts under the hat.  What is the name of the Advocate, whether shifting was of his house or his office, from where to which place the shifting was done.  Why did it take too much time in constructing the new file. This is only departmental and procedural delay.  By no stretch of imagination the same can be said to be the sufficient ground.  The following authorities neatly dovetail with this view:-

3.    Chief Post Master General & ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr., decided on 24.02.2012,  by the Apex Court, in Civil Appeal No. 2474-2475 of 2012 arising out of SLP(C) No. 7595-96 of 2011, it was held that :-

“13. In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bonafide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red-tape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few. Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Department for the delay except mentioning of various dates, according to us, the Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay. Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay.

4.      In Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), 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 Foras”.

5.          Similar view was taken in Ram Lal and Others v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, Balwant Singh (dead)  Vs.  Jagdish Singh & Ors.  (Civil Appeal no. 1166 of 2006),  decided  on 08.07.2010 & Bikram Dass Vs. Financial Commissioner and others, AIR, 1977 SC 1221.

6.      It is, therefore, established that the case is barred by time.  Moreover, the case on merits is also, too, weak. 

7.      The case of R.S. Verma, the complainant, is as follows.  On 19.12.89 he registered himself for High Income Group (HIG) House  in the Kalpataru Scheme of the petitioner i.e. Rajasthan Housing Board, Jaipur and Ors.   He had deposited Rs. 10,000/- as registration fee  with the Rajasthan Housing Board which sent letter confirming his registration under the Kalpataru Scheme and further deposited monthly installments from 1999 to 1993 in the total sum of Rs. 26,000/-  approximately. Thereafter, the said Kalpataru Scheme was discontinued due to paucity of land.  A public notice was published in newspapers and the OPs launched an open registration scheme for the already registered applicants. In the year 1999 the OPs sent a letter to the complainant issuing him a priority number with respect to the HIG independent house.  The complainant was given 15 days to exercise his option, if he was to be allotted a house in the housing scheme. The complainant deposited Rs. 80,000/- .  At this stage, counsel for the petitioner submits that it was a sum of Rs. 40,000/-.  We have checked the complaint as well as the written statement. In para No. 5 of the written statement it is clearly, specifically and unequivocally stated that the amount of Rs. 80,000/- was deposited. 

8.      The respondent has admitted the facts in para 5, which are reproduced as under:-

“That para 5 of petition is admitted.  Petitioner on 12.12.2001, applied for an MIG-B house in the open registration scheme for Pratap Nagar, Sanganer wherein he opted for three houses and deposited Rs.80,000/- and as per lottery he was allotted House No. a 192/329 and a demand of Rs.3,67,500/- was raised vide letter No.4129 dated 30.03.2001.  The allegation of the Petitioner that he had applied for an HIG house is not true and correct.  Defendants have adjusted interest of Rs.13,400/- on  registration amount of Rs.10,000/- which is clear from the allotment letter dated 30.03.2001”.

9.          Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the receipt of Rs. 40,000/- was given which is on record and, thereafter, House No. 192/329 was allotted in favour of Sh. R.S. Verma in MIG Category.  He applied for HIG and was allotted MIG category and allotment charges were demanded from him.  Petitioner demanded an amount of Rs.  3,67,500/- as balance amount.  The OP had adjusted Rs. 10,000/- and interest in the sum of Rs. 13,000/- that accrued on it thereof.  The complainant R.S. Verma requested the respondent to adjust the amount already deposited by him in the HIG Scheme through instalments vide letter dated 04/05/2001.  However, that record was not available with opposite party No. 1 for which the counsel for the petitioner could not give any explanation.  He submits that record was not available with the petitioners and thereafter, they asked for copies of challans from the complainant. The complainant replied that it was the responsibility of the OP to maintain the record of his deposit vide letter dated 31.05.2001.  The complainant also approached the bank but being an old record it could not be traced out.  The correspondence went on for 4 years.  The OP asked the complainant to approach the Bank.  On 29.04.2004 when the bank flatly refused to extend help notice was issued to the complainant to pay the balance amount within 15 days failing which the allotment would be cancelled.  On 29.07.2004, the amount was not paid, ultimately, the complainant paid the amount in the sum of Rs. 3,17,560/-.

10.    The O.P. issued a fresh allotment letter and requested the complainant to deposit Rs. 3,10,560/- after duly adjusting the amount of Rs. 26,600/- deposited in the Kalpataru scheme and amended the demand of Rs. 3,17,560/- and further it was mentioned that this allotment would be valid with effect from 30.03.2001 on the pretext that the amount was not deposited on 30.03.2001 to 2004.  They demanded and got deposited the amount of Rs. 2,01,760/-  that was the interest for 4 years.  The complainant was compelled to deposit the said amount in order to get possession. 

11.           Thereafter, he filed complaint before the District Forum for refund of the said amount.  The District Forum held:-

     “Annexure 13 which has been filed by the petitioner himself clearly substantiates that he can deposit the amount after adjusting the amount already deposited by him and it was further stated that any type of penalty shall be recoverable as per the rules and regulations of the Board.  Thereafter too, Petitioner kept on writing several letters to adjust the above amount and did not deposit the demanded amount.  It seems that petitioner gained time to deposit the demanded amount on the pretext of adjustment of the above amount. If petitioner was willing to take the possession of the house and to deposit the demanded amount he would have certainly can deposit the same after deducting the already paid amount of Rs.50,000/- but he did not do so.  It seems that the petitioner has not come with clean hands before this Forum and by one way or the other did not want to deposit the amount.  Petitioner has received the interest on his deposited amount and likewise the Defendants are also entitled to get the interest amount of Rs.2,14,132/- as per law which was amended to Rs.2,01,769/- and the same amount of interest was charged from the petitioner which is according to the HUDCO rate of interest.  Defendants are not at fault in recovering the amount of interest of Rs.2,01,769/- from the petitioner and as such the petition is liable to be dismissed”.

12.    The appeal was preferred by the complainant before the State Commission.  The State Commission did not agree with the findings given by the District Forum that if the respondents were bonafide then they should have deposited the amount after deducting 50,000/- from

the demanded amount and therefore, he is liable to pay interest.  The State Commission came to the conclusion that if the complainant would have deposited the amount after deducting 50,000/- from the demanded amount, the respondent would not have accepted the payment.  Counsel for the petitioner submits that the State Commission had drawn the assumption wrongly, which carried no substance.  The State Commission quashed the interest.

13.    The contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner is mere palliative and does not delve deep to the roots of malady.  First of all, it is difficult to fathom why did the O.P. abandon Kalaptaru Scheme.  It was floated prior to the year 1989 and was abandoned somewhere in 1993.  Why did OP1 started it when it had not got the Land.  The gullible people were taken for a ride.  Who else except the OPs must know what is the rate difference between the piece of land in 1989 and 2001 or 2004.  The prices of land have increased by leaps and bounds.  Payment of interest is just paying the peanuts to the allottees.  The commission has to be clear eyed and about what realistically these facts are leading to.  The commission cannot waft aside this issue as a venial.

14.    Due to Bizarre conduct of the OPs, it is not understood why the record is not with them.  Why they are contradicting themselves as to whether the complainant had deposited Rs. 40,000/- or Rs. 80,000/-.  On the one hand, in the written statement they averred that Rs. 80,000/- were charged by them from the Complainant.  On the other hand the counsel for the petitioner has given the new plea that only Rs. 40,000/- were given by the complainant.  He has also produced receipt in support of his case.  If they have claimed Rs. 40,000/-, they should have immediately moved an application for amendment.  The state Commission has rightly held that the request was made only after demand letter was received.  The respondent took 4 years to do that.  It is also surprising to note that OPs have no record in respect of the deposited amount with them and they kept on asking the complainant to furnish the same.  Even if it is agreed that the complainant did not furnish the copies of the challans, did not OPs receive any payment from the Bank.  It is a pity that OP1 did not come with something.  Their amenability cannot be brushed aside under the carpet.  The OP1 is terribly remiss in discharge of its duty.  It commits fragrant errors, which are never accounted for.  On the contrary, its attempts is to lead the consumers up the garden path.  Instead of admitting their own mistake regarding the abandoning the scheme and loss of record they feel happy to impose illegal interest upon the consumer.  Why should any one take a dallop of injustice from someone else because the other one is more powerful.  

15.    In view of the facts and circumstances detailed above, the complainant got himself registered in the year 2001.  Under these circumstances demanding interest from 2001 to 2006 from the complainant is against the Law.  The State Commission has rightly held that respondents are only entitled to receive the interest from 11.05.2005, the day when the revised demand letter was issued.  The assumption made by the State Commission cannot be said to be all wet.  It is a result of its being empirical and practical in confronting reality.  It has meticulously checked the record with precision and clarity. It is also seen that the entire amount was deposited by the complainant on 13.09.2004 earlier to issue of the demand letter.  Consequently, the State Commission has rightly held that OPs are not entitled for interest from 2001 because they did not adjust the paid amount in the past and appellant kept on asking to adjust the same.  No fault is found with the order passed by the State Commission.

16.    The revision petition is therefore, dismissed.