Back
2009(2) CPR 272 (NC)
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
NEW DELHI
Ashok Bhan, President and Mr. B.K. Taimni, Member
The Commissioner, Municipal Council, Aabu-Parvat and Others —Petitioners
versus
Himmat Mal Tailor Public Health and Engineering Department (Water Works), Sirohi, Rajasthan —Respondent
Revision Petition No. 1249 of 2004
Decided on 17.3.2009
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Devendra Mohan Mathur, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. A.K. Vatsa, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Where plot had been allotted to respondent/complainant, he would be a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 2(1)(g)—Deficiency in service—Allotment of plot to complainant by petitioner—Deposit of 1/4th of price of plot by complainant—Non-execution of title deed by petitioner and failure to communicate to complainant requiring him to deposit remaining 3/4th price of plot—Complaint—Allowed by District Forum—Appeal—Dismissed by State Commission—Revision petition there against—Plea of petitioner that complaint was time barred having been filed after a delay of 13 years and that complainant was not a consumer—Held petitioner had informed respondent that he would be required to pay balance 3/4th amount towards cost of plot only after it received sanction—However petitioner failed to communicate to respondent requiring him to deposit balance 3/4th amount towards cost of plot—Not only that petitioner failed to accept balance amount inspite of repeated requests made by respondent to accept balance amount—Petitioner failed to indicate date on which cause of action had arisen to respondents—In the facts and circumstances of case, complaint filed by respondent held to be deemed to be within limitation—Again since plot had been allotted to respondent, he was held to be a consumer under Section 2(1)(d) of Act—Revision petition having no merit, dismissed. (Paras 7 to 12)
Result: Revision petition dismissed.
Ashok Bhan, President—Petitioner herein, who was the opposite party before the District Forum Disputes Redressal Forum, Sirohi, Rajasthan (hereinafter referred to as ‘the District Forum’ for short), has filed the present Revision Petition.
2. Shortly stated, the facts of the case are:
Respondent/complainant was allotted a residential plot No.1 in Kala Chhapta Scheme in the Lower Income Group category vide letter No. MS/3/76/107 dated 13.04.1978. The total price of the plot was Rs. 1,165/-. Respondent, as required, deposited a sum of Rs. 292/- being 1/4th of the sale consideration on 30.03.2005. Petitioner informed the respondent that the remaining 3/4th of the cost of the plot would be recovered after receiving the sanction from the District Collector, Sirohi, Rajasthan. Respondent repeatedly asked the petitioner to receive the balance amount of consideration from him and execute the title deed but the petitioner did not reply to the same. Petitioner also failed to communicate to the respondent requiring him to deposit remaining 3/4th price of the plot.
3. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed a complaint on 28.02.2002 before the District Forum. Apart from merits, the petitioner took the preliminary objection that the respondent was not a consumer and that the complaint had been filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation. District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the respondent to deposit the balance amount towards the price of the plot and simultaneously directed the petitioner to allot the plot to the respondent within one month of the deposit of the balance amount by the respondent.
4. Petitioner being aggrieved filed an Appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’ for short). The State Commission agreeing with the findings recorded by the District Forum, dismissed the complaint. It was held that the petitioner had failed to allot the plot in spite of repeated requests made by the respondent to accept the balance amount of payment.
5. Being aggrieved by the Order passed by the Foras below, the present Revision Petition has been filed.
6. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the complaint filed by the respondent was hopelessly time barred. The Order of Allotment is of the year 1977 and the complaint was filed in the year 2000, after a delay of 13 years, much beyond the prescribed period of two years from the arising of the cause of action. We do not find any substance in this submission.
7. The petitioner had informed the respondent that he would be required to pay the balance 3/4th amount towards the cost of the plot only after it receives the sanction from the District Collector, Sirohi, Rajasthan. Petitioner failed to communicate to the respondent requiring him to deposit the balance 3/4th amount towards cost of the plot. Not only that, the petitioner also failed to accept the balance amount in spite of the repeated requests made by the respondent to accept the balance amount. The complainant has failed to indicate the date on which the cause of action had arisen to the respondent would be deemed to be within limitation.
8 .Since the plot had been allotted to the respondent, he would be a ‘consumer’ within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
9. It may be noted that the two points regarding the limitation and that the petitioner was not a consumer, had not been urged before the State Commission.
10. On merit, we agree with the view taken by the District Forum as well as the State Commission that there was deficiency on the part of the petitioner in rendering services to the respondent.
11. No other point was urged before us.
12. For the reasons stated above, we do not find any merit in this Revision Petition and dismiss the same with costs, which are assessed at Rs. 1,500/-. Petitioner is directed to comply with the Orders issued by the Foras below.
Revision petition dismissed.
*****
