Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
V.B. Gupta, P.M and Rekha Gupta, Member
HUDA AND ANOTHER - Appellants
Versus
JASPAL SINGH - Respondent
Revision Petition No. 387 of 2012. (Against the Order dated 09/11/2011 in Appeal No. 1459 of 2005 of the State Commission Haryana).
Decided on : 20-07-2015
S. K. Mahajan, Advocate, for the Appellant; Dharampal Chauhan, Advocate, for the Respondent
The central legal point established in the judgment is the peremptory nature of the limitation period provision under Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and the duty of the consumer forum to examine the timeliness of the complaint filing.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act - Allotment of shop-cum-office - Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - [Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986] - The court discussed the limitation period under Section 24-A of the Act and emphasized the peremptory nature of the provision, requiring the Consumer Fora to examine whether the complaint has been filed within the stipulated period of two years from the date of cause of action. The court also referred to the case of Kandimalla Raghavaiah & Co. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and another, 2009 CTJ 951 (Supreme Court) (CP) and highlighted the duty of the consumer forum to take notice of Section 24A and give effect to it. The court ultimately allowed the revision petition, setting aside the orders passed by the lower Fora and dismissing the consumer complaint as barred by limitation.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent was allotted a shop-cum-office by the petitioners and paid the required amount. However, the respondent claimed deficiency in service due to the absence of a sewerage line at the time of possession offer. The respondent filed a consumer complaint seeking various reliefs, which was allowed by the District Forum but dismissed by the State Commission. The petitioners filed a revision petition under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned orders.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the consumer complaint filed by the respondent was hopelessly barred by limitation and no application for condonation of delay was filed. As a result, the court allowed the revision petition, setting aside the orders passed by the lower Fora and dismissing the consumer complaint as barred by limitation.
Issues: The issues revolved around the deficiency in service claimed by the respondent, the limitation period for filing the consumer complaint, and the applicability of Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the peremptory nature of the limitation period provision under Section 24-A of the Act and highlighted the duty of the consumer forum to examine whether the complaint has been filed within the stipulated period of two years from the date of cause of action. The court also referred to relevant case law to support its decision.
Final Decision: The court allowed the revision petition, set aside the orders passed by the lower Fora, and dismissed the consumer complaint as barred by limitation.
ORDER
V.B. Gupta, (P.M) - Petitioners/Opposite Parties have filed present revision petition under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, 'Act) against impugned orders dated 23.05.2011 and 9.11.2011, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula (for short, 'State Commission).
2. Brief facts are, that Respondent/Complainant was allotted shop-cum-office in March, 1997 by the Petitioners/Opposite Parties. Respondent paid 15% of the price at the time of allotment. Remaining amount was to be deposited within four years in eight half yearly installments, which respondent has paid. The petitioners offered possession to the respondent. Since there was no sewerage line, respondent requested the petitioners to provide sewerage line. Petitioners informed the respondent, that sewerage line has been laid in the area in August, 1997 and occupation certificate has been issued on 28.07.1997.
3. It is the case of respondent, that sewerage line was laid in August, 1997, whereas possession was offered in July, 1997. Thus, occupation of the building has no relevancy with the offer of possession. Thereafter, respondent made representation to the Estate Officer, HUDA, which rejected the same. Then, respondent filed an appeal before Administrator, HUDA challenging the order of the Estate Officer, but the same was dismissed, vide order dated 16.10.2003.
4. Aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Authority, respondent filed revision petition before the Commissioner and Secretary to Govt. of Haryana, Town and Country Department, on 15.12.2003, which too was dismissed by the Revisioning Authority on 26.08.2004.
5. It is respondents case that order passed by both the authorities are illegal, unjust, discriminatory and arbitrary and are liable to be quashed. Since, petitioners have rendered deficiency in service, consumer complaint was filed by the respondent seeking following reliefs;
" That the complaint of the complainant be allowed by quashing the order dated 04.12.2003 by the Administrator, HUDA, and other dated 26.08.2004 issued by Commissioner TOCP Panchkula. And the order dated 22.11.2002 passed by the Estate Officer, HUDA Panchkula and may further direct the opposite parties;
(a) To charge possession interest after 8/97 as has been allowed in respect of plot No. 99, Sector 11, panchkula which is adjacent to the complainant plot and adjust the same in subsequent installment or refund as the case may be.
(b) Issue the fresh schedule of payment,
(c) To charge simple interest @ 15% of the delayed payment of installment.
(d) Issue fresh notice if any amount is due against the complainant.
(e) To issue fresh statement of accounts and to refund the excess amount deposited if any which interest.
(f) To pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, harassment and inconvenience cause to the complainant."
6. In the written statement, petitioners took preliminary objection stating, that present complaint is not maintainable and is barred by limitation. The alleged cause of action in favour of respondent arose in year 1997. The present complaint had been filed in the year 2004, i.e. after a gap of nearly 7 years.
7. It is further stated, that respondent earlier filed an appeal before the Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula, on the grounds as contained in the present complaint. That appeal was dismissed on 16.10.2003. Thereafter, respondent filed a revision petition under Section 30 of the HUDA Act before the Financial Commissioner and Secretary to Govt. of Haryana, Town and Country Planning Department, Chandigarh. The same has also been dismissed on 26.08.2004. The District Forum, now cannot sit in appeal against the orders passed by the above authorities.
8. Further, respondent has obtained the occupation certificate on 28.07.1997. The sewerage connection was also granted to him, as soon as he made application in August, 1997. Thus, there is no deficiency on the part of the petitioners.
9. Consumer D
