Haryana

StateCommission

A/131/2016

HUDA - Complainant(s)

Versus

SAVITRI DEVI - Opp.Party(s)

N.K.BAJAJ

07 Sep 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      131 of 2016

Date of Institution:      10.02.2016

Date of Decision :       07.09.2016

 

1.     Haryana Urban Development Authority, Kurukshetra through its Estate Officer.

2.     Chief Administrator, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Panchkula.

                                      Appellants-Opposite Parties

Versus

 

Smt. Savitri Wadhwa w/o Sh. Jai Dayal, Resident of House No.1454, Sector-12, Urban Estate, Panipat, District Panipat.

                                      Respondent-Complainant

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                                                                                                              

Present:               Shri Vineet Sehgal, Advocate for appellants.

                             Shri Madan Jassal, Advocate for respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

This Opposite Parties’ appeal is directed against the order dated February 11^th, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kurukshetra (for short ‘the District Forum’) in Consumer Complaint No.112 of 2010.

2.                The brief facts of the present case not disputed between the parties are that Savitri Wadhwa-complainant/respondent, applied to Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA)-Opposite Parties/appellants, for allotment of a residential plot measuring 325 Square meters.  She was allotted plot bearing No.322(P), measuring 325 square meters at a tentative price of Rs.61,499.75 besides Rs.6149.98 as preferential charges, vide allotment letter dated 13.09.1985.  Thus, the total tentative price was Rs.67,649.73. The opposite parties-HUDA further raised demand of Rs.24,274.35 vide memo No.18711 dated 10.12.1991 towards the enhanced price of the plot, which the complainant paid. However, the possession of the plot was delivered on 26.08.2009, that is, after about 25 years and that too of 303.75 square meters instead of 325 square meters.  Thus, the area of the plot was 22.25 Square Meters less than that of the actual allotted plot. Hence, the complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking direction to HUDA to refund the price of 22.25 Square meters alongwith interest @ 18% per annum; interest @ 18% per annum on the entire amount of Rs.92,280/- from 10.12.1991 to 26.08.2009 and till payment and compensation for harassment etcetera.

3.                The opposite parties-HUDA, contested complaint by filing written version. It was stated that an amount of Rs.59,330/- was outstanding against the complainant upto March, 2010 and therefore she was liable to pay the same along with interest. Denying complainant’s complaint, it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

4.                After evaluating the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum vide impugned order allowed complaint and directed the opposite parties-HUDA, as under:-

“…….we allow the present complaint and direct the Ops to refund/adjust the amount of deficit area of 22.25 sq. meters at the rate of 189.23 ps per square meter which they initially charged from the complainant plus at the rate of Rs.74.69 ps. Per square meter which they have charged from the complainant after enhancement and the complainant will be entitled to interest at the rate of 10% on the refundable/adjustable amount from 10.12.1991 to 26.8.2009. We further direct the Ops to pay simple interest @ 10% per annum on the deposited amount made by the complainant from 13.12.1985 (after deducting 90 days from the date of issue of allotment letter) till 30.06.2009 i.e. the date of offer of possession to the complainant. We also direct the Ops to pay an amount of Rs.5500/- to the complainant as litigation expenses. This order should be complied within a period of 30 days, failing which penal action under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act would be initiated against the Ops.”

5.                There is delay of 333 days in filing of the appeal, the condonation of which has been sought by the appellant by filing an application. In para No.2 of the application, the ground taken for condonation of delay is reproduced as under:-

“2.     That the order to file appeal against the impugned order Dated 11.02.2015 passed by District Consumer Forum, Kurukshetra, the case is to be processed through different departments of the appellant Board. Therefore, due to this reason, the appeal could not be filed in time otherwise there was no occasion for the appellant to allow the period of limitation to expire.” 

6.                Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bikram Dass Versus Financial Commissioner and others, AIR 1977 Supreme Court 1221 has held as under:-

“Section 5 of the Limitation Act is a hard task-master and judicial interpretation has encased it within a narrow compass. A large measure of case law has grown around S.5, its highlights being that one ought not easily to take away a right which has accrued to a party by lapse of time and that therefore a litigant who is not vigilant about his right must explain every day’s delay.”

7.                In Pundlik Jalam Patil (dead) by LRS vs. Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project and Another, (2008) 17 SC 448, Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:-

“…The evidence on record suggests neglect of its own right for long time in preferring appeals. The court cannot enquire into belated and stale claims on the ground of equity. Delay defeats equity. The court helps those who are vigilant and “do not slumber over their rights”.

8.                Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition No.2430 of 2010, decided on 18.08.2010 titled as HUDA vs. Mr. Krishan Lal Khurana, held as under:-

“……The justification given for delay of 246 days is that HUDA being a Govt. Department, the file had to pass through various Sections and thus, the objections could not be removed in time after filing of the appeal. Such explanation can hardly be considered as sufficient cause for delay of 246 day. In Haryana Urban Development Authority, Haryana, vs. Haryana Petro Chemical Ltd. Rewari, 1 (2010) CPJ 194 (NC), the matter was considered threadbare by a Bench of this Commission, of which I was one of the party.  After referring to large number of authorities of the Apex Court it has been observed therein as under:-

“Thus, from the above judgments of the Apex Court, it is clear that no short jacket formula can be evolved for dealing with the application for condonation of delay and every case depends upon facts and circumstances of its own. It is now well settled that expression “sufficient cause” must be liberally construed in order to advance cause of justice. it also must be remembered that after expiry of period of limitation, the opposite party acquires a valuable right and such valuable right cannot be set at naught unless sufficient cause is shown. It is also well settled that length of delay is no matter, acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. Sometimes delay of the shortest range may be uncondonable due to a want of acceptable explanation whereas in certain other case, delay of a very along range can be condoned as the explanation thereof is satisfactory. In addition, certain amount of latitude is not impressible where Government is seeking condonation and a little play at the points within reasonable limits is necessary. It does not mean that the Government bodies enjoy long rope and can get away without giving sufficient explanation only on the ground that the delay is sought by Government bodies.

          At this stage, we would like to point out that we have noted in many cases of condonation of delay filed by HUDA before the State Commission as also before this Commission that a routine explanation is always being put forward blaming the official delays in handling the matters relating to filing of appeals and revisions. Can such an approach continue indifferently and repeatedly and no attempt should be made to improve the working of the official machinery for all times to come? Can a body that repeatedly comes out with the same state explanation for condoning delay deserve exercise of discretion in its favour?

          Keeping in view need to promptly file appeals, the Apex Court in State of Haryana Vs. Chandra Mani & Ors (supra) and State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Ahmed Jaan (Supra) has observed that the Government at appropriate level should constitute legal calls and in the event of decision to file appeal, the officer responsible for filing appeal should take prompt action and he should be made personally responsible for lapses, if any.”

The State Commission, therefore, very rightly dismissed appeals on the ground of delay of 246 days……….”

9.                The instant case is fully covered by the above cited judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble National Commission. No special concession can be given to the Government Department to condone the delay when no ‘sufficient cause’ is explained. Hence, the application moved by the appellants-HUDA for condonation of delay is dismissed.

10.              Even on merits, the controversy between the parties is with respect to the delay in delivery of possession of a residential plot which was allotted to the complainant in 1985 but possession was delivered on 26.08.2009, that is, after about 25 years. More so, the area of the plot was short by 22.25 square meters than that of the actual allotted area. Therefore, HUDA has to refund cost of shortfall in area allotted. In view of this, the appellants-HUDA definitely rendered deficient services to the complainant. So the order under appeal requires no interference.

11.              In view of the above, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed on both the grounds, that is, being barred by limitation as well as on merits.

 

Announced 07.09.2016

Urvashi Agnihotri Member

B.M. Bedi Judicial Member

Nawab Singh President

CL