NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
C. Viswanath, Presiding Member and Ram Surat Ram Maurya, Member
Kanpur Development Authority – Petitioner
versus
Gyan Niketan School and Anr. – Respondents
Revision Petition No.436 of 2021
(Against the Order dated 09/02/2021 in Appeal No.347/2020 of the State Commission
Uttar Pradesh)
Decided on 6.8.2021

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) It has been consistently held by Supreme Court that issue of limitation is an issue of jurisdiction.
(2) Serious issue relating to maintainability of complaint by Respondents as it has been specifically stated that Respondent was not a consumer.
(3) Respondent illegally raised construction without sanction of layout building plan mandatory under U.P. Urban Development and Planning Act, 1973.
(4) No relation between Respondent and Petitioner as a service provider.

Headnote:

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 19 (Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Sec. 24) – Revision Petition - Against the Order dt. 09.02.2021 in Appeal of the State Commission – Delay in filing revision condoned by this Commission - Respondents stated that its building was constructed in 1958 - Construction was regularised later, contrary to Respondent’s own case that its office bearers purchased open land/plots on 31.03.1993 and 31.08.1999 - Neither Distt. Forum nor State Commission recorded any finding that construction made by Respondent was within norms of Bye-laws of Kanpur Development Authority – Also, consistently held by Supreme Court that issue of limitation is an issue of jurisdiction - If delay in filing appeal not condoned then State Commission had jurisdiction to examine merit of the case - State Commission illegally examined the merit of the case and its findings on merit are without jurisdiction - Serious issue relating to maintainability of complaint by Respondents as it has been specifically stated that Respondent was not a consumer – Respondent illegally raised construction without sanction of layout building plan mandatory under U.P. Urban Development and Planning Act, 1973 - No relation between Respondent and Petitioner as a service provider - Respondent was running education institution for commercial purpose.

Held: It has been consistently held by Supreme Court that an issue of limitation is an issue of jurisdiction. If delay in filing the appeal was not condoned then, State Commission had jurisdiction to examine the merit of the case. State Commission has illegally examined the merit of the case. Findings of State Commission on merit are without jurisdiction.

The complainant took a case that its building was constructed in 1958 and it was a composite building on plot 33 and 81, i.e. prior to coming into force of U.P. (Regulation of Building Operation) Act, 1958 and U.P. Urban Development and Planning Act, 1973, and their construction was regularised later on which is contrary to its own case that its office bearers purchased open land of plot No. 33 (area 243 Sq. Yard) on 31.03.1993 and plot No.81 (area 350 Sq. yard) on 31.08.1999. When they found themselves in difficulty, then they deposited Rs. 5,00,000/- as compounding fee, on 07.09.2018, for compounding their illegal construction. Even at time also they did not submit lay out plan of the construction, which was sought to be compounded. Under U.P. Urban Development and Planning Act, 1973 and the Bye-laws of Kanpur Development Authority, only those constructions can be compounded which satisfy the norms prescribed in it. Neither District Consumer Forum nor State Commission has recorded any finding that the construction of the complainant was falling within the norms of the Bye-laws of Kanpur Development Authority and without examining the map of the complainant and provisions of the bye-laws directed for compounding the building, although it has been specifically pleaded by the petitioner that five story construction cannot be compounded under the Act and the bye-laws.

There was a serious issue relating to maintainability of the complaint as it has been specifically stated that the complainant was not a consumer inasmuch as (i) They have illegally raised the construction without sanction of a lay out building plan which was mandatory under U.P. Urban Development and Planning Act, 1973 as such there was no relation between it and the petitioner as a service provider and (ii) The complainant was running education institution for commercial purpose. (Paras 12, 13 & 14)

Result: Revision Petition allowed.