Haryana

StateCommission

A/655/2015

HUDA - Complainant(s)

Versus

VEENA SHARMA - Opp.Party(s)

M.S.RANA

26 Aug 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :       655 of 2015

Date of Institution:       07.08.2015

Date of Decision :        26.08.2015

 

1.      The Estate Officer, HUDA, Bahadurgarh.

2.      The Chief Administrator, HUDA, Sector-6, Panchkula, Haryana.

                                      Appellants-Opposite Parties

Versus

 

Smt. Veena Sharma d/o Sh. Suraj Bhan Sharma, Advocate, Resident of Old Tehsil Road, near LIC Office, Jhajjar, Haryana.

                                      Respondent-Complainant

 

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                                                                                                              

Present:               Shri M.S. Rana, Advocate for appellants.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

The Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority (for short ‘HUDA’) Bahadurgarh and Chief Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula-Opposite Parties, are in appeal against the order dated January 29^th, 2015, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short District Forum), Jhajjar.   

2.      Plot No.596, admeasuring 162 square meters, Sector-JH6, Urban Estate, Bahadurgarh, was allotted to Rajbir Singh s/o Sh. Hari Singh, vide allotment letter bearing Memo No.2579 dated March 28^th, 2008. Rajbir Singh sold said plot to Smt. Veena Sharma-complainant-respondent. On February 10^th, 2011, the HUDA issued re-allotment letter in favour of the complainant.

3.      As per terms and conditions of the allotment letter, 10% of the tentative price of the plot was deposited alongwith the application, 15% within 30 days from the date of issue of the allotment letter and the balance price was paid in six annual instalments alongwith interest at the rate of 15% per annum. The interest was to accrue from the date of offer of possession. The possession of the plot was to be offered within a period of three years of the allotment after completing the development works in the area failing which the HUDA was liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the amount deposited by the complainant after the expiry of three years till the date of offer of possession. The HUDA delivered possession on February 3^rd, 2012, that is, after three years, ten months and three days of the allotment. By that time, the complainant had already paid Rs.5,36,725/-, that is, the price of the plot and interest on the installment amount, whereas HUDA could not charge interest before the delivery of possession, that is, February 3^rd, 2012.

4.      The complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 averring that the HUDA wrongly charged interest on the instalments amount without offering possession of the plot, which was actually offered on February 3^rd, 2012 and that too without completing the development works in the area.

5.      The HUDA-opposite parties contested the complaint by filing reply denying the averments made in the complaint.

6.      After evaluating the pleadings of the parties and the evidence brought on the record, the District Forum, vide impugned order accepted complaint and issued direction to HUDA as under:-

“…..Therefore, we direct the respondents to pay interest @ 9% p.a. on the amount deposited by the complainant/original allottee after the expiry of three years of the date of allotment till the date of offer of possession. The respondents are further directed to provide the basic amenities in the sector as per plan/scheme to the complainant within a period of six months i.e. water supply be given through pipe line, the roads be made available as per plan of sector-6 to connect the link road etc..etc…which are the basic needs of inhabitants/allottees/complainant of sector-6, Jhajjar. It is also clear that the complainant has also suffered mental agony, harassment etc due to the deficient act of the respondents and the complainant had to file the present complaint before this Forum. Hence, we further direct the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- on account of mental agony, harassment, Rs.3300/- Local Commissioner fee along with litigation expenses of Rs.5000/- to the complainant. The complaint stands disposed of accordingly”.

 

7.      There is delay of 160 days in filing of the appeal, the condonation of which has been sought by the appellants-HUDA by filing an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The ground taken in the application is that the aforesaid delay occurred due to the lengthy procedure for obtaining approval from the higher authorities of HUDA.  

8.      Learned counsel for the appellants-HUDA has contended that the delay caused in filing of the appeal is unintentional and it has occurred due to circumstances beyond the control of the appellants.

9.      This Commission has considered the submission made on behalf of the appellants. The explanation for the delay caused in filing of the appeal is vague and far from being satisfactory.

10.    A 30 days period has been prescribed in Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short ‘Act’), for filing appeal against the order of the District Forum. However, the proviso contained therein permits the State Commission to entertain an appeal after the expiry of the period of 30 days if it is satisfied that there is ‘sufficient cause’ for not filing the appeal within the period prescribed. The expression ‘sufficient cause’ has not been defined in the Act, rightly so, because it would vary per facts and circumstances of each particular case.

11.    It is well settled that the delay cannot be condoned on the ground of equity and generosity. While proceeding with the prayer made it has to be kept in mind that expiration of the period of limitation prescribed gives a right to the adversary to treat the order as binding between the parties and this legal right provided by lapse of time should not be disturbed light heartedly. Similar view dovetails from the following authoritative pronouncements:-

12.    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.”

13.    In State of Nagaland versus Lipokao and others 2005(2) RCR (Criminal) 414 Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that to get any appeal admitted or to get the delay condoned, it is condition precedent to first prove the “sufficient cause” for exercise of discretion by the Court in condoning the delay. Unless and until the sufficient cause is not proved, the delay cannot be condoned.

14.    Hon’ble Apex Court in 2012(2) CPC 3 (SC)–Anshul Aggarwal  Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority  observed as under:-

“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”.

Thus, it becomes clear that there is no reasonable explanation at all for condonation of inordinate delay of 140 days. In such circumstances, application for condonation of delay is dismissed”. 

 

15.    In Office of the Chief Post Master General and others vs. Living Media India Limited and another, (2012) 3 SCC 563, Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:-

“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”.

 

16.    In view of the above, this Commission has to bear in mind that the object of expeditious disposal of consumer dispute would get defeated if such like applications filed on frivolous grounds are allowed. The law comes to the assistance of the vigilant and not of the sleepy.

17.    The ground taken in the application is a sad commentary on the working of the employees of the appellant and this ground is manifestation of the laxity, negligence and inefficiency.  To accept such ground as sufficient cause for condonation of delay would tantamount to putting premium on the parties own acts of negligence and non challance.  So, this Commission does not find it a fit case to condone the delay of 160 days. Hence, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed.

18.    Even on merits, there is no force in the instant appeal.  It is admitted case of the parties that the plot was allotted on March 28^th, 2008, but possession was offered on February 3^rd, 2012, that is, after three years, ten months and three days of the allotment.

19.    During the hearing of the complaint, the District Forum appointed Shri Neeraj Saini, Advocate, as Local Commissioner vide order dated January 28^th, 2014. The Local Commissioner visited the plot and found that pipe line was installed but the same was without flow of water. Not only that, connecting roads to Sector-6, were in bad condition, sewerage system was not properly working etcetera.  In this view of the matter, it is established that the basic amenities were not provided and possession was offered without completing the development works in the area. That being so, HUDA was liable to pay interest to the complainant at the rate of 9% on the amount deposited after the expiry of three years till the date of offer of possession, as per HUDA policy (Annexure A-4).

20.    In view of the above, the order passed by the District Forum requires no interference. Hence, the appeal is dismissed on the ground of limitation as well as on merits.

21.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced 26.08.2015

Urvashi Agnihotri Member

B.M. Bedi Judicial Member

Nawab Singh President

CL