IMPORTANT POINT
Frivolous petitions must be dismissed with costs.

Vinay Kumar, Member—In this revision petition the order of Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in FA NO.1558 of 2007 has been challenged. The State Commission has set aside the award of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar and held that:-

“The cause of action arose to the respondent on 07.05.2003 itself, when the objections were raised and the site plan was not sanctioned, whereas the present complaint was filed on 28.11.2005 i.e. after more than two and a half years of the cause of action. Mere writing letters/reminders Ex.C-3 to Ex.C10 does not extend the limitation in any manner. It is settled that once the limitation starts running, then no correspondence, letters, notices can stop it. The District Forum has taken into consideration these letters to calculate the period of limitation and that is not the correct view. Similarly, there was no provision to refund the fee paid for the site plan and the order of the District Forum is not sustainable in the eyes of law.”

2. We have carefully perused the records and heard the counsel of the revision petitioner. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the ground that the cause of action in this case would arise only with the communication of rejection of the proposed building plan by the respondent/ Municipal Corporation. The respondent has not at any stage communicated rejection to the petitioner. This contention is in direct conflict with the revision petitioner’s own stand in the complaint petition that the building plan was submitted for approval on 10.4.2003 together with the prescribed fee Rs.327430/- and in the notice of 7.5.2003, twelve objections were raised by the Corporation. This notice was received on 21.5.2003 and—

“That the complainant on the thorough study and discussion with the architect of the complainant, the complainant found that it is not possible to remove the objections by changing the plan of construction/structural change and the complainant on 17-07-2003 vide application dated 16-07-2003 requested to refund the said MAP Fee of Rs.3,27,430/- as the complainant back off the plan to construct the proposed building. The true Photostat copy of the said letter dated 16-07-2003 is Annexure C-3.”

3. Thus, in a case where the proposed construction plan itself is withdrawn by the Complainant, there would be no occasion for the respondent Municipal Corporation to either approve or rejected it. We therefore, find this contention of the revision petitioner absurd and reject it.

4. Another ground for challenge to the impugned order is that the amount deposited was for sanction of the plan and the Corporation had merely raised objection instead of sanctioning it. Therefore, it is contented that it had no right to retain the said amount. This again amounts to a misrepresentation of facts. It is not the case of the revision petitioner that the respondent/Corporation received the plan with the fee and took no further action. Admittedly, the plan was scrutinised and considered. Only thereafter, the twelve objections, mentioned by the petitioner himself in the complaint before the District Forum, were raised by Municipal Corporation, Jalandhar. It is not the case of the revision petitioner that under the law or rules applicable to the case, the Corporation can retain the charge/fee only if the plan is sanctioned without any modifications.

5. We therefore find ourselves in full agreement with the view taken by the State Commission in the impugned order. The revision petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed as such. We also hold that it also amounts to wasting the time of this Commission in a frivolous petition. Section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeks to discourage and disallow such proceedings. The revision petition is therefore, dismissed with fine of Rs.25,000/-, which shall be paid by the petitioner into the Consumer Welfare Fund of the Central Government, in terms of the provision of Rule 10 A o