Back
DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Lokeshwar Prasad,
President & Ms. Rumnita Mittal, Member
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY—Petitioner
versus
SMT. RENU GAUBA—Respondent
Revision Petition No. 1649 of 2001—Decided on 27.1.2003
In the instant case the objection raised by the petitioner regarding pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Forum to entertain the present complaint has already been decided by the learned District Forum vide order dated 19.5.2000 wherein it has been held that the reliefs claimed are with regard to deficiency in service and the same comes to less than 5 lacs. However even if the first two conditions are satisfied then also it was for the petitioner to prove that the wrongful assumption of pecuniary jurisdiction by the learned District Forum had resulted in consequent failure of justice. In the absence of such an averment, the objection of the petitioner regarding wrongful assumption to pecuniary jurisdiction by the District Forum is devoid of merit and as such is not maintainable in law.
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 12 and 17-Housing-Complainant purchased a shop in auction sale and deposited entire sale price-Failure to deliver possession of shop with amenities of water and electricity-District Forum allowed complaint for grant of interest on amount and compensation-Revision-Contention that jurisdiction of consumer fora was barred in a case of auction sale of immovable property-Amended Act includes housing construction-Jurisdiction of Redressal Agency under the Act is not barred especially if there was deficiency in service in a case where property was purchased in auction.
Even on merits the present revision petition is devoid of merit. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order of the learned District Forum on two grounds. Firstly, that the shop in question was purchased in auction and as such in view of the decision of the National Commission in cases-entitled Ashok Tayal v. DDA, II (1995) CPJ II (NC) and the other entitled Tamil Nadu Housing Power v. R. Siva Subramanium, 1986-99 Consumer 3587 (NS) the jurisdiction of For a in respect of transaction relating to the sale of immovable property by auction is barred as there is no element of hiring of services in such cases. We are unable to subscribe to the said contention of the petitioner, as the Honble National Commission in a recent decision entitled-Amritsar Improvement Trust v. Sanjay Kumar 2003 CTJ 28 (CP) (NCDRC) has held that in view of the amendments made in the Act in 1993 to include housing construction in Section 2(1)(o) and the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in Lucknow Development Authority v. N.K. Gupta, 1993 CTJ 99: 1994 (1) CPR 569 (SC)
Disputes relating even to properties purchased in open auction, the jurisdiction of the Redressal Agencies under the Act is not barred, especially if there has been deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. As such the contention of the petitioner that the District Forum had exercised jurisdiction not vested in it is devoid of merit and as such cannot be upheld.
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 17(b)-Revision-Limitation-Though no limitation for filing revision is prescribed under the Act, revision should ordinarily be filed within 90 days.
Though it is averred by the petitioner that the certified true copy of the impugned order was received by it on 7.7.2001, it is apparent from the perusal of the certified true copy attached with the revision petition that the same is a duplicate copy issued at the request of the petitioner, whereas the original true copy of was prepared on 9.1.2001 and deemed to have been delivered to the petitioner soon thereafter. The petitioner has however failed to mention the details thereof merely stating in its application for condonation of delay that the original certified copy sent by the District Forum was not received in the commercial department of the petitioner. It is not the case of the petitioner that the copy was not received by the receipt section of the petitioner/DDA, at all. Furthermore, no reason has been assigned as to why and under what circumstances the appellant applied for the certified copy of the impugned order only on 7.7.2001 i.e. after a delay of about 6 months. Furthermore, the appellant has not filed an appeal under section 15 which provides for condonation of delay. Rather a revision petition has been filed challenging the jurisdiction of the District Forum in entertaining the complaint relating to purchase of immovable property in open auction. Though no limitation period is prescribed for filing a revision petition under Section 17(b) of the act but the Honble National Commission has settled the law on the said aspect in case entitled Kerala Consumer Protection Centre v. District Executive Officer, 20 CTJ 264 (CP) NCDRC), wherein it has been held that though no period of limitation has been prescribed for filing revision petition under the Act, revision should ordinarily be filed within a period of 90 days, failing which, it is liable to be dismissed on ground of laches. As such the present revision petition having been filed beyond the period of 90 days from the date of the order the same is liable to be dismissed on the above ground alone.
Ms. Rumnita Mittal, Member—The present revision petition has been filed against the order of District Forum, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi, dated 11.12.2000, passed in Complaint Case No. C-1791/1999 - entitled Smt. Renu Gauba v. Delhi Development Authority.
2. Brief facts, leading to the filing of the present revision petition, are that the respondent had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) before the District Forum averring therein that the petitioner had advertised for auction of some shops and as such the respondent after depositing the earnest money, amounting to Rs. 10,000/- had bid for Shop No. 10, situated at Block No. 5, Sector 9, Rohini, Delhi and had been declared successful for the allotment of the same. Accordingly, the respondent had deposited 25% of the price of the shop amounting to Rs. 3,98,000/- on 18.2.1998. Thereafter the respondent had received a demand letter dated 18.3.1998 directing him to deposit the balance 75% of the amount i.e. Rs. 12,56,685/- within 30 days from the date of the issue of the letter. The respondent, however, expressed her inability to pay immediately and as such requested the appellant to extend the period for payment by six months. The said request of the respondent was duly allowed by the appellant vide letter dated 8.5.1998. Thus the respondent was permitted to make the payment of the balance 75% of the total price of the shop in question by 17.10.1998 subject to payment of interest on the said amount. The respondent as per requirement made the payment of the balance amount of Rs. 12,56,685/- in 6 instalments within the extended period allowed to the respondent. However, since the appellant failed to deliver the possession of the shop in question duly equipped with amenities of water and electricity and also failed to respond to her request for waiver of interest charged for the extended period, the respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum praying for directions to the appellant to hand over the possession of the shop duly electrified and also to waive interest sought for the extended period. The respondent also prayed for grant of interest @ 18% p.a. on Rs. 16,64,685/- (the price paid for the shop), for the period from 15.10.1998 onwards, together with compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment undergone by her.
3. The defence of the petitioner/DDA in its reply/written version, filed before the District Forum was that the respondent had prayed for the extension of time up to 7.10.1998 for the balance payment of the bid amount of the shop, i.e. 12,56,685/-, subject to payment of interest, on the said amount for the extended period. However, though the respondent had paid the balance amount of Rs. 12,56,685/-, she had failed to make the payment of interest. So far as the provision of electricity and water in the shop in question was concerned, it was stated by the petitioner in its reply/written version, filed before the District Forum, that the responsibility for providing the said amenities was of the Delhi Vidyut Board and Municipal Corporation of Delhi, respectively, and since the petitioner had duly deposited a lump-sum amount with the said authorities on 19.2.1999 for providing the above said amenities in the shop in question, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner and, therefore, the complaint filed by the respondent being devoid of merit was liable to dismissed with costs.
4. The learned District Forum, on the basis of material on record, allowed the complaint of the respondent holding the petitioner guilty of deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice and granted the reliefs as per the impugned order.
5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner has filed the instant revision petition.
6. We have carefully perused the documents/material on record, as well as have deliberated upon the written submissions filed on behalf o
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
