Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
V. B. Gupta, Presiding Member, Suresh Chandra, Member
V.B. Ambedkar (Pensioner) —Petitioner
versus
District Collector —Respondent
Revision Petition No.2780 of 2008
(Against the order dated 31.3.2008 in F.A. No.1378 of 2007 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra)
Decided on 3.11.2014
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner: Nemo.
For the Respondent: Nemo.
IMPORTANT POINT
Act of measurement of land is not a commercial activity.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 24-A—Deficiency in service—Failure of officials to conduct measurement of land even after deposit of measurement fee—Petitioner in spite of specific directions has not filed copy of pleadings which were required to be filed— Present petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone—Consumer forum must deal with complaint on merits only if complaint has been filed within two years from date of accrual of cause of action and if beyond said period, sufficient cause has been shown and delay condoned for reasons recorded in writing. (Paras 10 and 14)
(B) Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 24-A—Deficiency in service—Failure of officials to conduct measurement of land even after deposit of measurement fee—Complaint dismissed by State Commission in appeal—Petitioner had applied to respondent for measurement of land—Act of measurement of land is a duty cast under Revenue Act—It cannot be said that respondent was rendering any kind of service for consideration—Collector does not render service for consideration—Act of measurement of land is not a commercial activity—It is a statutory function under Revenue Act—No any infirmity or illegality in impugned order—Revision petition dismissed being barred by limitation as well as on merits with cost of Rs.5,000/-. (Paras 16 to 19)
Result: Appeal allowed.
V.B. Gupta, Presiding Member—Petitioner/Complainant has filed the present petition challenging order dated 31.3.2008 passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra (for short, ‘State Commission’).
2. Brief facts are that, petitioner after having purchased certain land in Pune applied to the Office of Respondent/Opposite Party on 12.6.2002 for measurement of the land. Petitioner was asked to deposit the measurement fee of Rs.6,000/- which he deposited. The grievance of petitioner is that he approached the officers of respondent several times for measurement of the land, but they refused to do the measurement. Accordingly, consumer complaint was filed by him before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pune (for short, ‘District Forum ‘).
3. The consumer complaint was contested by the respondent. The officers of respondent intimated the Forum that measurement has been completed and papers pertaining to the same were filed before the Forum.
4. District Forum after hearing the parties vide order dated 22.6.2007, partly allowed the complaint and directed the respondent to complete the work of measurement of the disputed land. It also awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the petitioner in addition to Rs.2,000/- as cost.
5. Being aggrieved, respondent filed appeal before the State Commission which allowed the same and dismissed the complaint.
6. Hence, this revision petition.
7. After filing the petition, petitioner appeared only once i.e. on 7.5.2014, before this Commission. Notice of the petition was issued to the respondent but none appeared for it. Hence, respondent was proceeded ex parte.
8. On 13.6.2014, when petition was listed for final hearing, the petitioner sent an application by post stating that it is not possible for him to attend the hearing before this Commission as he is residing 1500 kms. away and his written arguments may be considered. Inspite of the aforesaid request, we gave him one further opportunity to argue the matter. Further, it transpired from the record, that petitioner had not filed the copy of pleadings. Therefore, opportunity was given to him to file the same. However, petitioner did not file any copy of the pleadings but sent again written arguments by post, which were received on 9.9.2014.
9. We have perused the entire record.
10. Present petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone, since petitioner inspite of specific directions has not filed the copy of pleadings which were required to be filed.
11. Be that as it may, coming to the merits of the case, the complaint filed by the petitioner before the District Forum was barred by limitation. As per petitioner’s case, he deposited the measurement fee of Rs.6,000/- with the respondent in June, 2002, whereas consumer complaint was filed only on 9.3.2006.
12. Section 24-A of the Act, deals with limitation and it read as under ;
“24-A. Limitation period :- 1) The District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period.
Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the National Commission, the State Commission or the District Forum, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay.”
13. The above provision is clearly peremptory in nature requiring the Consumer Fora to see at the time of entertaining the complaint, whether it has been filed within the stipulated period of two years from the date of cause of action.
14. Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Kandimalla Raghavaiah & Co. versus National Insurance Co. Ltd. and another 2009(4) CPR 17
