JUSTICE SUDIP AHLUWALIA, MEMBER

          This Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner/ Opposite Party against Respondent/Complainant through his/Legal heirs challenging the impugned Order dated 16.09.2016 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur, Rajasthan, in First Appeal bearing No. 1088 of 2013. Vide such order, the State Commission had dismissed the Appeal while upholding the order dated 28.05.2012 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jaipur,  in Complaint No. 452/08.

2.      The brief facts of the case are that the Complainant was allotted a plot bearing No. 203 in Lal Kothi Scheme, Jaipur, in place of an earlier purchased plot bearing No. 843, Nahri ka Naka, Jaipur, by the Opposite Party whose initial amount of Rs.507.50 was paid on 06.04.1970 vide receipt No.9826, and Rs.1,000/- on 28.07.1971 vide receipt No. 28. The case of the Complainant was that the Opposite Party had failed to give physical possession of the allotted plot resulting in grave negligence and deficiency in services. The Complainant wrote a letter dated 25.10.1988 and sent notices dated 14.07.1988 and 30.03.1996 demanding possession however, neither any reply was received, nor the possession was given. Therefore, the Complaint was filed before the Ld. District Forum alleging deficiency in services by the Opposite Party in failing to give possession of the plot and causing financial losses to the Complainant seeking possession, interest @ 24% from the date of deposit of Rs.1507.50 till handing over of the possession, Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for financial, physical and mental loss, and litigation expenses of Rs.3,300/-.      

3.      The Ld. District Forum vide Order dated 17.06.2006 partly allowed the Complaint bearing No. 269/2006 and directed the Complainant to produce the original documents within 15 days after which the J.D.A. was directed to hand over the possession in the next three months in the area of Lal Kothi, and if the plot is not available in Lal Kothi area then any other plot of similar dimensions was to be handed over. Being aggrieved by the said order, an Appeal bearing No. 1876/2006 was filed before the Ld. State Commission, Jaipur, which was allowed vide order dated 16.01.2007 at the stage of admission and the matter was remanded back to District Forum with the direction to decide the matter in accordance with law after taking the Reply of the Opposite Party on record and after granting full opportunity of hearing to both parties.

4.      The Opposite Party appeared before the Ld. District Forum and resisted the Complaint and denied all the allegations thereby denying deficiency in service on its part. It was contended by the Opposite Party that due to non-availability of the original file of the plot allotted to the Complainant, the situation related to handing over of possession was not clear and the proceedings with regard to issuance of the possession letter could not be initiated. It was further contended that the Complainant was asked to be present in the office of the Opposite Party along with the original documents but he did not appear.   The Opposite Party also replied to the notices vide letter no. 515. It was further contended that the Complaint was beyond limitation. It was also contended that the Opposite Party is formed according to the 1982 Act of Jaipur Development Authority, and any legal proceedings to be initiated against the Opposite Party would lie before the Jaipur Development Authority Appellate Tribunal. It was also stated that the Opposite Party was tracing the file and on availability of the file, it was ready and willing to initiate the proceedings with regard to the plot in accordance with rules. Therefore, the Opposite Party prayed for dismissal of the Complaint with costs.

5.      The Opposite Party also brought to light certain events that took place subsequent to passing of Order dated 17.06.2006. It was stated that the Complainant presented the documents before the Jaipur Development Authority from which it was found that size of the plot was shown as 125 sq. yards in the allotment letter dated 26.03.1970 whereas in the order dated 22.07.1971 passed by the immediate Town Development Authority, the size of the plot on being manipulated is 375 sq. yards which shows that the documents presented by the Complainant were tampered. Consequently, a letter dated 19.09.2006 was sent to the Complainant asking him to show cause. It was further stated that the Opposite Party filed an FIR with regard to non-availability of the file. Therefore the Opposite Party prayed for dismissal of the Complaint with costs.

6.      The Ld. District Forum vide order dated 20.12.2007 allowed the Complaint bearing No. 285/2007 and directed the Opposite Party to handover possession of the plot No. 203 (area 375 sq. yards) at the place- Lal Kothi Scheme and in case the plot is not available, then any other similar plot in Lal Kothi Scheme and in case of its unavailability also, any other similar plot in the middle of Jaipur within 10 km.  It also awarded Rs.20,000/- as compensation and Rs.2,000/- as expenses to the Complainant.  Being aggrieved by the above Order, Appeal bearing No. 237/2008 was field by the Opposite Party which was allowed vide order dated 04.04.2008 and directions were passed to produce an amended cause title, in place of the deceased Complainant (Date of death – 04.03.2003), of his Legal Heirs and on the District Forum to thereafter decide the Complaint on merits.   

7.      The Ld. District Forum vide its Order dated 28.05.2012 allowed the Complaint and observed as follows:

          “On the basis of aforesaid whole analysis this conclusion is drawn that Opposite Party while committing negligence & deficiency is services has not given the possession of the plot till date which was allotted to the complainant because of which he is unnecessarily suffering financial loss and mental agony for which opposite party is entitled to give the compensation.

             Therefore order is passed for admitting this complaint partly on this basis that opposite party within one month from today should allot the aforesaid plot no. 203 Lal Kothi Scheme Jaipur and if it is not possible then in any other scheme of Jaipur City of Jaipur should allot him the plot of this measurement meaning thereby 375 square yard and for that should not receive the amount more than the price as on 28.07.71 from the complainant. Apart from that for the purpose of mental agony suffered by the complainant and for compensating the financial loss should pay Rs.5,000/- in words Five Thousand rupees only and will pay Rs.1,500/- in words Fifteen Hundred Rupees as litigation expenses. Compliance of the order is to be done within one month from today otherwise complainant will be entitled to receive the interest at the rate of 12 percent yearly from the date of passing of an order till the actual payment. Other relief of the complainant is denied.”    

 8.     Aggrieved by the above Order, First Appeal bearing No. 1088 of 2013 was filed by Appellant/ Opposite Party against the Respondent/ Complainant through his Legal Heirs before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur, Rajasthan. The Ld. State Commission vide Order dated 13.01.2014 dismissed the Appeal while upholding the Order of the Ld. District Forum. Being aggrieved by the said Order, Opposite Party filed an Appeal before this Commission wherein the matter was remanded back to the Ld. State Commission vide Order dated 02.01.2015.

9.      The Ld. State Commission vide its impugned Order dated 16.09.2016 again dismissed the Appeal with cost of Rs.25,000/- while

upholding the Order of the Ld. District Forum.  In doing so, the Ld. State Commission had taken note of the fact that the version putforth on behalf of the Opposite Party/Petitioner before the District Forum was that the concerned file had been misplaced in its office establishment.  But after the Complaint was filed against it, the Opposite Party got an FIR to be lodged subsequent to remanding of the matter back by the State Commission.  The State Commission also noted that the Complaint had originally been lodged in the year 1996, and when according to the Opposite Party/Petitioner original file was not found, how could it raise a contention that the Complainant had made any interpolations in the allotment papers in his custody.  The Ld. State Commission also rejected the contention of the Complaint being barred by limitation, by holding that the cause of action for such a complaint continues till possession of the concerned properties is not delivered to the allottees, and in doing so, relied upon the settled case law in this regard, which has been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Lata Construction & Ors. Vs. Dr. Ramesh Chandra Ramniklal Shah, 2001 (SCC) 586-III (1999) CPJ 46 and in “Pukhraj D. Jain Vs. G.Gopal Krishna, 2004(7) SCC 251.   Similarly, the decisions of this Commission in “RP No. 838 of 2012, HUDA & Ors.  Vs. Maj. K.L. Monga”; and “RP No. 668 of 2013, Bhagya Laxmi Construction Vs. Sri Manoranjan Basak & Ors.” were also relied upon in coming to this conclusion that the complaint was not barred by limitation.

10.    The State Commission also was in agreement with the decision of the District Forum to the extent that the Appellant/Petitioner could not make out a credible case to indicate any forgery/interpolation on the part of the Complainant in the allotment papers issued to him, especially when it was not in a position to show its own relevant office file which was claimed to be misplaced/missing.

11.    Hence, the present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner/ Opposite Party against the above-mentioned impugned Order of the Ld. State Commission contending that the complaint was barred by limitation, that the Respondent had manipulated the documents in his favour and he had failed to attend the Petitioner’s call to its office for necessary documents.

12.    Heard the Ld. Counsel for Petitioner and Respondent. Perused the material available on record.

13.    At the outset, it may be mentioned that in its revisional jurisdiction, this Commission need not interfere in the concurrent findings of both the Ld. Fora below on the factual questions as to whether any interpolation/forgery in the Allotment Letter and other documents issued to the Complainant  by  the Petitioner  Authority  is  found  to  be actually

committed, which was answered in favour of the Complainant by both the Ld. Fora.  This Commission has also perused the aforesaid documents, copies of which have been placed on record by the Petitioners themselves and which are at pages 41-A to 41-H of the Paper Book. It is seen therein that in the original letter of allotment, the Plot No. as well as letter/correspondent No. and date as also location of the concerned plots have been entered into in the blank spaces in the proforma typed letter by hand, and there are also corrections therein in handwriting, which are fully consistent with the receipt Nos. 9826 dated 6.4.1970, and 28 dated 28.7.1971 issued in favour of the original Complainant by the Improvement Trust, Jaipur, i.e. predecessor in interest of the present Petitioner Authority.

14.    Consequently, this Commission finds no grounds whatsoever to interfere with the concurrent and well-reasoned decisions of both the Ld. Fora below.

15.    The Revision Petition is, therefore, dismissed and additional litigation costs of Rs. 25,000/- are awarded in favour of the Respondents/ Legal Representatives of the original deceased Complainant.   The Petitioner is, however, granted time for 02 months from this date to comply with the final Order of the Ld. District Forum.

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