1.       The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioners against Respondent as detailed above, under Section 21 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 29.11.2018 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeal (FA) No. 353 of 2018  in which order dated 08.05.2018 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ajmer (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Consumer Complaint (CC) No. 23 of 2014 was challenged, inter alia praying for setting aside the judgment dated 29.11.2018 passed by State Commission, in Appeal No.353/2018 and confirming the judgment dated 08.05.2018 passed by the District Forum, Ajmer in Complaint No.23/2014.

2.       While the Revision Petitioners (hereinafter also referred to as Petitioners) were Respondents and the Respondent (hereinafter also referred to as Respondent/Complainant) was Appellant in the said FA353/2018 before the State Commission the Revision Petitioners were OPs and Respondent was Complainant before the District Commission in the CC No. 23/2014. Notice was issued to the Respondents on 06.03.2020.  Parties filed Written Arguments/Synopsis on 21.06.2023 and 23.01.2023 respectively.

3.       Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Commission and other case records are that:

1. The respondent/complainant – Shiv Charan Singh Chauhan purchased the corner plot No.607, measuring 299 sq.yard in Hari Bhau Upadhyay Nagar (Extension) Scheme of the petitioners/OPs -  Ajmer Development Authority  on 23.01.2007 @ Rs.7,000/- per sq.yards for consideration amount of Rs.20,93,000/- and deposited Rs.5,25,000/-.  However, according to letter dated 06.02.2007 of the OP, the Respondent/complainant should have paid ¾^th  amount of the consideration i.e.  Rs.15,68,000/- within 60 days. But the Respondent/complainant could not deposit the said amount.   The Respondent/complainant wrote many letters between 13.07.2007 to 23.11.2011 to the OPs requesting for issuance of demand letter but no response was given to him.  The complainant made request to the Minister of Local Self Department and on his instructions the State Government vide his letter dated 13.03.2013 instructed to the OP  for sending the demand letter.  In pursuance to the said letter the OPs issued demand letter dated 12.04.2013 demanding the original amount with penalty and interest.  The Respondent/complainant deposited the amount under protest on 01.05.2015 and got the lease deed registered.  The complainant pleaded in his complaint that due to negligence and deficient services of the OPs, the complainant suffered a loss of of Rs.8,22,234/-. Hence, the complainant filed consumer complaint before the District Forum and prayed for relief.  The OPs contested the complaint filed by the complainant by filing their reply denying the allegations alleged by the complainant. 

2. It was submitted by the OPs that the complainant did not deposit the amount within stipulated time.  Reply to Complainant’s letter dated 13.07.2007 was given by the OPs on 19.07.2007.  In view of the request letter dated 19.12.2007, the complainant was permitted to deposit the amount upto 31.01.2008 through letter dated 09.01.2008.  Despite the opportunity, the complainant did not deposit the amount upto 31.01.2008.  Vide letter dated 28.02.2012, the OPs informed the complainant about cancellation of his plot before the Board.  Thereafter, the State Government sanctioned the deposit of complainant on the ground of depositing original amount, with interest and penalty.  Thereafter, the demand letter dated 12.04.2013 was issued and complainant deposited the amount.  The complainant referred the internal order sheet dated 03.07.2009 which was a clerical mistake and complainant could have not taken its benefit.  It was also submitted that in case of cancellation of allotment his regulation could have been made only by the State Govt. 

4.       Vide its order dated 08.05.2018  in CC No. 23 of 2014 rejected the complaint and directed both the parties to bear their own litigation expenses.

5.       Aggrieved by the Order dated 08.05.2018 of the District Forum, Respondent/complainant appealed in State Commission and the State Commission vide order dated 29.11.2018, accepted the Appeal No. 353 of 2018 and set aside the order dated 08.05.2018 passed by the District Forum in CC/23/2014 and directed the OPs to pay Rs.8,22,234/- to the Complainant alongwith the interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of deposit the amount and litigation costs in the sum of Rs.10,000/- was awarded.

6.       Petitioners have challenged the order dated 29.11.2018 of the State Commission mainly/inter alia on following grounds:

1. The judgment passed by the State Commission is contrary to the legal principles of law as well as against the facts of record, therefore, order passed by the state Commission is absolutely illegal, arbitrary and liable to be quashed and set aside.

2. The State Commission erred in not considering this fact that the complainant filed the complaint on this ground that as per the file of internal comments/departmental comments dated 9.7.2009 and 10.8.2009, the demand order was not issued by the OPs and it was a deficiency on the part of the OPs.  If in pursuance of the departmental comments dated 09.07.2009 and 10.08.2009 the complainant was required to deposit the amount but demand order was not issued by the OP, so he could not deposit the required amount.  If demand order was not issued in following the order dated 09.07.2009 and 10.08.2009, then cause of action had arisen to the complainant and he could have filed the complaint before the District Forum within two years upto 09.08.2011.  But the complaint was filed in 2014 hence, barred by limitation.  Only on the ground of limitation the complaint was liable to be dismissed. 

3. The State Commission failed to consider the finding recorded by the District Forum in para no.8 of the judgment. The District Forum had recorded this finding that from the clerical comments it is clear that the request of the complainant was confirmed, but final order was not passed.  Until and unless the final order is not passed till then it cannot be presumed that such order was issued.

4. The State Commission failed to examine this fact that the interval proceedings or the comments could not been the basis for drawing the presumption against any party. First of all the complainant did not deposit the amount thereafter did not give any reply to the demand made by the development authority.  In such situation the complainant was totally defaulter and because of his act he was not entitled for any relief.

5. The State Commission also failed to consider the fact that the complainant was a defaulter since he did not deposit the required amount on time and his case was placed for cancellation of the allotment of the plot before the authority.

6. The complainant had purchased the plot in auction and therefore, he was not a consumer as per the settled law of the National Commission.

7.       Heard counsels of both sides.  Contentions/pleas of the parties, on various issues raised in the RP, Written Arguments, and Oral Arguments advanced during the hearing, are summed up below.

7.1     It is contended by the Petitioners that the complainant booked a plot on 23.01.2007 and deposited Rs.5,25,000/-.  The Respondent/ complainant made the default in the payment of outstanding amount within the stipulated time.  Subsequently, on the application to the State Government and on the instruction on State Government demand letter was issued on 12.04.2014. After receiving the demand notice the complainant deposited the amount under protest.  The complainant filed RTI and got the copy of the note sheet prepared by department on 09.07.2009 but the said not sheet was not approved by the competent authority.  Even the department was not competent to issue the demand note as it was beyond the power to condone the delay.  The note-sheet in question was only inter department communication and it cannot be said that due to the negligence demand note was not prepared and sent to the complainant.  The complainant filed complaint before the District Forum, which was dismissed.  The complainant filed Appeal.  The State Commission allowed the Appeal stating that all the formalities  to pass the order to issue the demand note on 09.07.2009 but same was not issued and it is proved that OP had done deficiency of service.  Hence, the OP filed Revision Petition stating that even note sheet was prepared but the department was not competent to issue the demand notice as per by-laws hence, internal notice is not valid and cannot be made as base to file the complaint. 

7.2.    The Respondent/complainant contended that OP vide their letter dated 06.02.2007, demanded ¾ of the remaining amount within 60 days.  The Respondent was supposed to deposit Rs.15,68,000/- as per the demand letter dated 06.02.2007.  Due to personal reasons, the Respondent could not deposit the said balance amount within stipulated time. The Respondent submitted representation to the petitioner on 13.07.2007 and requested that he is ready to deposit ¾ amount in compliance of the demand letter dated 06.02.2007 and also requested for extension of time and to issue a new demand letter.  But the petitioner did not respond.  The Respondent also sent reminder on 19.12.2007 and 09.07.2008 and many other reminders for extension of time and to issue a new demand letter, but the petitioner did not reply.  Then the Respondent requested to the Minister of Local Bodies Rajasthan Government.  On repeated requests of Respondent, the Deputy Secretary passed the order dated 13.03.2013 and instructed petitioner to issue demand notice of the balance amount along with interest and penalty.   The Respondent deposited the amount under protest.  The petitioner acted carelessly on the application of the Respondent for the extension of time and to issue new demand letter.  Note-sheet was prepared by the Petitioner but did not reply to the above mentioned letters.  The order passed by the State Commission is well reasoned order based on the documents findings and other evidence on record.  Therefore, the Revision Petition be dismissed with heavy costs.

8.       We have carefully gone through the facts and circumstances of the case, orders of State Commission and District Forum, other case records and rival contentions of the parties.  State Commission has, while accepting the appeal and quashing the orders of the District Forum, given following Reasons:-

“It is undisputed fact that previously appellant did not deposit the amount in time but after that on his request order was passed to deposit the amount.

    Both the parties did not deny these circumstances that note sheet was prepared on 09.07.2009 and calculation of the amount was made on 24.09.2009 as Rupees 23,76,916/- (twenty three lakhs seventy six thousands nine hundred and sixteen only) inclusive of penalty and interest and order was passed to deposit the said amount up to 31.10.2009 so, all the proceeding was completed by the opposite party then by not issuing the demand letter, the opposite party has done the deficiency of service. The opposite party was unable to state that why demand letter was not issued at that time and due to non-issue of demand letter appellant paid excess amount of Rs.8,22,234/- (eight lakhs twenty two thousands two hundred and thirty four only) without any reason. The deficiency in service by the opposite party is proved and complaint of the appellant is liable to be accepted.

     Therefore appeal is accepted and the order dated 08.05.2018 passed by District Forum, Ajmer is set aside and Complaint is accepted and order is passed against the opposite party to pay Rs.8,22,234/- (eight lakhs twenty  two thousand two hundred and thirty four only) to the appellant along with interest  @9% p.a. from the date of deposit of the amount.”

9.       We find that State Commission has not taken into account the reasons given by the OPs (Petitioners herein) for not issuing the demand letter after the calculations were made in the note sheet.  We have perused the relevant note sheet.  It does not have the approval of the competent officer of the authority.  The OP authority was not even competent to condone the delay and issue the demand letter.  It was within the competency of the State Government.  Hence, it was only after the case was approved by the State Government that the OP Authority issued the demand letter.  Hence, we find that State Commission went wrong in concluding that there was a deficiency on the part of OP Authority as all formalities to pass the order to issue demand on 09.07.2009 were completed but same was not issued.  State Commission has not appropriately considered all the facts in this regard and erred in concluding that OP Authority has committed deficiency in service.  Order of the State Commission is not a well-reasoned order.  District Forum has rightly observed that note sheet prepared by junior level officials of Authority cannot be taken as the final order of the Competent Officer of the Authority.  District Forum has further observed that “it is accepted fact that Complainant failed to deposit 3/4 of the balance amount within time. When the Complainant not deposited the amount within 60 days from the demand letter dated 06.02.2007 then through his representation dated 13.07.2008 stated that he is ready to deposit balance amount as per the demand letter dated 06.02.2007. However he was defaulter since beginning and he is not entitled any rebate on the interest and penalty. After the correspondence from time to time, he submitted the application before the concerned minister. After that on the direction of the State Government demand letter was issued and required amount was deposited. In such circumstances, applicant is not entitled to get the difference amount.” Although District Forum has also found fault with the Authority on certain counts like “Here it is important to mention that this act of opposite party is shameful that even after consideration of the application and recommendation, order was not issued. The facts about clerical error is not acceptable”, but considering the entire facts, the District Forum has not found any deficiency in service on the part of the OP Authority.

10.     For the reasons stated hereinabove, and after giving a thoughtful consideration to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, various pleas raised by the learned Counsel for the Parties, the RP is allowed.  Order of the State Commission is set aside, order of the District Forum dismissing the complaint is upheld.

11.     Parties to bear their respective costs. The pending IAs in the case, if any, also stand disposed off.