Back
HARYANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
R.S. Madan, President and Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member
ANNU ENTERPRISES INDIA - Appellant
Versus
HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ORS. - Respondents
First Appeal Nos. 2115, 2569 of 2004 and Appeal No. 247 of 2007
Decided on : 07-09-2010
Mr. Kapil Khannal, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Raman Gaur, Advocate, for the Respondent
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, regarding the limitation period for filing complaints. The court emphasized the peremptory nature of the provision and the requirement to examine the filing of complaints within the stipulated period.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act - Possession of Plot - Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - [24A] - The court considered the limitation period under Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which requires a complaint to be filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. The court emphasized that the peremptory nature of the provision necessitates the Consumer Fora to examine whether the complaint has been filed within the stipulated period and to condone the delay only if sufficient cause is shown. The court cited relevant case law to support its interpretation and concluded that the complaint filed by the complainant was barred by limitation and therefore not entertainable. As a result, the impugned order was set aside and the complaint was dismissed.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant was allotted a plot and alleged deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties due to a high tension electric line passing over the plot. The District Consumer Forum accepted the complaint and issued directions to the opposite parties. Subsequent appeals were filed by both parties, and the court considered the delay in filing the appeals, the limitation period under the Consumer Protection Act, and the maintainability of the complaint.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complaint filed by the complainant was barred by limitation and not entertainable under Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. As a result, the impugned order was set aside, and the complaint was dismissed. The subsequent appeals were decided accordingly.
Issues: The issues involved the delay in filing the appeals, the limitation period under the Consumer Protection Act, and the maintainability of the complaint due to the bar of limitation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which requires complaints to be filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. The court emphasized the peremptory nature of the provision and cited relevant case law to support its interpretation.
Final Decision: The impugned order was set aside, and the complaint was dismissed. The subsequent appeals were decided accordingly. The statutory amount deposited at the time of filing the appeal was ordered to be refunded to the appellant.
ORDER
R.S. Madan, President - Vide this common order we are deciding above mentioned three appeals as they relate to same controversy and are connected with each other. Of these three appeals, appeal No. 2115/2004 and appeal No. 2569/2004 have arisen out of the order dated 4.5.2004 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Gurgaon in complaint No. 2190/2001, whereas the appeal No. 247/2007 has arisen out of the order dated 30.9.2005 passed in execution petition No. 184/2004 which is the outcome of the order dated 4.5.2004 in the main complaint.
2. Appeal No. 2569/2004 and appeal No. 247/2007 were fixed for 1.12.2011 and 4.8.2011 respectively and these appeals have been preponed for today on the request of the learned Counsel for the parties to avoid any conflicting order.
3. The brief facts of the present case are that complainant Annu Enterprises India was allotted plot No. 102 Pace City Sector 37, Gurgaon vide allotment letter bearing Memo No. 2664 dated 28.6.1996. The possession of the plot was delivered to the complainant on the same day. After depositing the entire price of the plot by the complainant, the conveyance deed in respect of the plot in question was executed in favour of the complainant. The complainant got sanctioned the site plan for raising construction and also obtained loan of Rs. 11,67,000 from the opposite party No. 4-Haryana Financial Corporation and also completed construction of basement on the plot. However, thereafter filed the present complaint alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties on the ground that a high tension electric line of 33 KV was passing over the plot in question and the same was not removed despite repeated requests to the opposite parties.
4. On the other hand it is the case of the opposite parties that at the time of delivery of possession of the plot, it was disclosed to the complainant that the high tension wire was passing over the plot and the same was assured to be shifted within a short period and thereafter for removal of the said high tension electric line, the HUDA authorities had sent a letter bearing Memo No. SPl 1 dated 13.9.1999 to Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., Gurgaon vide and thereafter a reminder was sent vide Memo No. 31 dated 18.1.2001. The estimated expenses of Rs. 5,75,900 for removal of the electric line were deposited with the Nigam. After deposited the aforesaid amount, the HUDA authorities again sent a reminder bearing Memo No. 341-42 dated 8.5.2001 for removal of the electric line at earliest. Thus, denying it a case of any kind of deficiency of service, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5. On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and evidence brought on record, the District Consumer Forum accepted the complaint vide order dated 4.5.2001 by issuing following direction to the opposite parties:
"....... the respondent is directed to remove the electric wire passing over the plot in question, if it has not been removed so far. The respondent is further directed to pay interest @ 18% p.a. over the entire deposits from the respective date of deposits till the date of payment. The compliance of this order be solicited within one month after the receipt of the copy of this order. No costs."
6. Aggrieved against the impugned order dated 4.5.2001, the HUDA authorities filed appeal No. 2569/2004 for setting aside the impugned order and complainant filed appeal No. 2115/2004 for grant of compensation on account of loss of income, loss of interest paid to the opposite party No. 4 from whom the complainant had obtained loan for raising construction over its plot and to pay the damages on account of mental agony and harassment.
7. It is material to mention here that there was no stay against the impugned order dated 4.5.2004 and the complainant had filed an execution petition No. 184/2004 before the District Consumer Forum, Gurgaon for executing the main order, wherein vide order dated 30.9.2005 following direction
