Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
V.B. Gupta, Presiding Member
PUNJAB URBAN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY - Appellant
Versus
RAVINDERJIT KAUR - Respondent
Revision Petition No. 2436 of 2011 with I.A. No. 1 of 2011 (For Stay), I.A. No. 2 of 2011 (For Delay) and I.A. No. 3 of 2012 (Revised Application for Delay) from Order dated 29.9.2010 in Appeal No. 797 of 2004 of State Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh
Decided on : 16-10-2012
Ms. Harvinder Kaur and Mr. Nishesh Sharma, Advocates, for the Appellant; None., for the Respondent
The court emphasized that sufficient cause for condoning delay must be shown and observed that gross negligence and lack of bona fides cannot be condoned.
Headnote:
Delay in filing revision petition - Consumer Dispute - [FACT OF THE CASE] Petitioner filed a revision petition against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh. The delay in filing the petition was attributed to government litigation process and an accident involving the panel advocate. The court dismissed the petition due to gross negligence and lack of bona fides, imposing a cost of Rs. 10,000. [FINDING OF THE COURT] The court found the delay in filing the revision petition to be unjustifiable and dismissed the petition. [ISSUES] The main issue was the condonation of the delay in filing the revision petition. [RATIO DECIDENDI] The court applied the principle that sufficient cause for condoning delay must be shown and observed that gross negligence and lack of bona fides cannot be condoned. [FINAL DECISION] The court dismissed the revision petition and directed the petitioner to deposit a cost of Rs. 10,000.
ORDER
V.B. Gupta, Presiding Member - Petitioner/OP being aggrieved by order dated 29.9.2010, passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (for short, 'state Commission') has filed the present revision petition.
2. Brief facts are that Respondent/Complainant had applied for a plot measuring 400 sq. yards in Urban Estate, Kapurthala. She had deposited a sum of Rs. 37,000 vide bank draft dated 24.1.2000. She was allocated plot No. 1406, vide letter dated 6.10.2000 by the petitioner. She was also required to submit the affidavit within 15 days from the issuance of the said allocation letter. It was mentioned in the said allocation letter that allotment letter would be issued after submission of the affidavit. Respondent submitted her affidavit dated 19.10.2000 to the petitioner. It is stated that respondent had been requesting the petitioner for a number of times to tell her the fate of her application but petitioner did not disclose the same to her. Respondent also wrote letter dated 3.4.2003 to the petitioner but in vain.
3. It is further alleged that respondent was shocked to receive letter dated 19.9.2003, in which it was stated that respondent was allotted Plot No. 1406, vide allotment letter dated 29.12.2000 but she had failed to deposit the requisite amount within 60 days from the issuance of the allotment letter. Therefore, earnest amount of Rs. 37,000 stood forfeited. The said forfeiture was illegal. Hence, complaint was filed praying that petitioner be directed to issue fresh allotment letter to the respondent and she be given all the rights and options. It was also prayed that petitioner be directed to pay interest on the amount of Rs. 37,000 at the rate of 18% per annum. Compensation, interest and costs were also prayed.
4. Petitioner in its written statement has admitted that Plot No. 1406 was allotted to the respondent vide allotment letter dated 29.12.2000 after she had submitted her affidavit in compliance of letter dated 6.10.2010. It is further stated that petitioner has written letter dated 19.9.2003 to the respondent informing her that amount of Rs. 37,000 deposited by her had been forfeited. The said amount had been forfeited in accordance with terms and conditions of the allotment letter, as respondent failed to deposit the remaining instalment amount. Since, respondent had wilfully failed to deposit 15% of the amount within 60 days from the date of allotment therefore, forfeiture order dated 19.9.2003 was legal and valid.
5. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kapurthala (for short, District Forum ), vide its order dated 19.5.2004, disposed of the complaint observing as under:
"As the complainant has not received allotment letter, therefore, she was not in a position to accept allotment. Thus, her case falls within the ambit of above mentioned para and 10% of the earnest money deposited shall have to be forfeited. If we calculate on the basis of above directions, then it appears that complainant has deposited Rs. 37,000 and by deducting 10% complainant is entitled to Rs. 33,300 along with interest @ 12% from the date of deposit till realization. As the complainant has been harassed too much, therefore, opposite parties are burdened with damages of Rs. 5,000 and Rs. 250 as costs of the complainant. The above directions be complied with by the opposite parties within a period of one month from the receipt of copy of this order, failing which same be recovered in accordance with law."
6. Aggrieved by the order of District Forum, petitioner filed appeal before the State Commission, which vide its impugned order partly allowed the same and reduced the rate of interest from 12% p.a. as awarded by the District Forum to 9% p.a. and further held, that respondent is not entitled to Rs. 5,000 awarded to her damage.
7. This is how the matter has reached before this Commission.
8. Along with present petition an application seeking condonation of delay (I.A. No. 2 of 2011) has been filed. However, no
