NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Ram Surat Ram Maurya, Presiding Member and Bharatkumar Pandya, Member
Lucknow Development Authority – Appellant
versus
Ram Krishna Dixit – Respondent
First Appeal No.486 of 2024
(Against the Order dated 22/11/2023 in Complaint No. C/2002/11 of the State Commission Uttar Pradesh)
Decided on 7.10.2024
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 19 – Contract Act, 1872 – Section 56 – Allotment of flat – No deficiency of service on part of OP – Doctrine of frustration of Contract – Complainant never sought for refund of his money for delay in allotment of flat, but rather requested for allotment of flat in other building – OP allotted flat in other building vide allotment letter to complainant – SC failed to consider that complainant had taken possession of flat – After taking possession, there could not be any loss to complainant – OP alleged that by agreeing to pay the amount & by paying such amount & taking possession, complainant want to go behind the concluded contract between parties – For a flat of less than Rs.10 lacs, compensation of more than Rs.50/- lacs has been granted. Although possession was handed over to on 23.5.2001, in pursuance of allotment letter – Fair justice not done by SC – Order of SC is set aside – Appellant is directed to pay cost of Rs.20,000/- to respondent. (Paras 10, 11, 13 and 14)
Result: Appeal allowed.
ORDER
Heard Mr. Mukesh Verma, Advocate, for the appellant and Mr. Amit Kumar Dixit, Advocate, for the respondent.
2. The opposite party has filed above appeal from the order of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.P. dated 22.11.2023 passed in CC/11/2002 & CC/6/2011, directing the appellant to pay interest @12% per annum on Rs.178783/-, deposited by the respondent from the date of respective deposit till the date of payment, within 30 days, failing which, interest would be payable @15% per annum; pay damages at the rate of Rs.50/- per day from the date of first allotment dated 05.10.1990 till 06.06.2015 the date of giving possession; pay compensation of Rs.One lac with interest @12% per annum from 05.10.1990 till 06.06.2015, within 30 days, failing which, interest would be payable @15% per annum; charge an amount of Rs.425000/- and not Rs.1158000/-, as the cost of the flat allotted to the complainant and refund excess amount within 30 days, failing which, interest would be payable @12% per annum; withdraw demand notice dated 24.12.2001 and also withdraw the amount of interest raised against allotment letter dated 05.10.1990; pay Rs.20/- lacs with interest @12% per annum from 05.10.1990 till 06.06.2015, within 30 days, failing which, interest would be payable @15% per annum, for deficiency in service; pay Rs.15000/- per month from 05.10.1990 till 06.06.2015, within 30 days, failing which, interest would be payable @15% per annum from 05.10.1990, as compensation for loss of rent.
3. The office has submitted report that the appeal has been filed with delay of 180 days. The appellant has filed IA/9810/2024, for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. The appellant stated that the counsel appearing before State Commission had sent the copy of the order dated 22.11.2023 to the law section on 25.11.2023. Law section informed the Estate Branch on 30.11.2023. Vice Chairman appointed Mr. Mukesh Verma, Advocate on 24.01.2024, for filing the appeal. The concerned officer signed the vakalatnama on 30.01.2024. The concerned officer handed over the papers and vakalatnama to the Advocate on 02.05.2024. Then the appeal, application etc. were drafted and filed on 19.06.2024. The respondent has filed his reply/objection to the delay condonation and stated that certified copy of the impugned order was received to the law section on 25.11.2023. Law section did not show due diligence in filing the appeal. There is absolutely no explanation for the delay from 30.01.2024 till 02.05.2024. Although the affidavit has been sworn on 03.05.2024 but the appeal has been filed on 19.06.2024 and there is no explanation for the delay during this period. Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provides 30 days limitation for filing the appeal. Delay condonation application is liable to be rejected and the appeal be dismissed as time barred.
4. Supreme Court in Sridevi Datla v. Union of India, (2021) 5 SCC 321 and Brahampal v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2021) 6 SCC 512, held that the contours of the area of discretion of the courts in the matter of condonation of delay in filing appeal are set out in a number of pronouncements of this Court. It is true, no general principle saving the party from all mistakes of its counsel. If there is negligence, deliberate or gross inaction or lack of bona fides on the part of the party or its counsel there is no reason why the opposite side should be exposed to a time-barred appeal. The expression “sufficient cause” in Section 5 must receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice and generally delay in preferring appeal is required to be condoned in the interest of justice where no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides is imputable to the party seeking condonation of the delay.” The words “sufficient cause” in Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice, when the delay is not on account of any dil
Brahampal vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd.
T.N. Housing Board vs. Sea Shore Apartments Owners’ Welfare Assn.
Allotment of flat – Delay – Compensation cannot be granted in multiple heads.
(1) Development Authority - The development authority is a government authority and is required and expected to function in accordance with the prescribed administrative and financial rules, its acco....
Important Points(1) Cancellation – It is notable that the cancellation was done without even a letter setting out the reasons and/or steps taken by it to suitably rectify the situation.(2) Refund – T....
One sided contract term – The Builder cannot seek to bind the Buyers with such one-sided contractual terms.
(1) Justified Withholding of Payments – An allottee is not necessarily “at fault” for stopping installments if it is evident that the builder is nowhere near completing the project by the committed d....
Flat Buyer’s Agreement – Denial of timely possession despite substantial payment – Payment of interest on refund of principal amount is necessary.
Non-availability of the Occupancy/Completion Certificate points to the deficiency on the part of the Appellant.
(1) Possession - If the developer fails to deliver possession of the allotted plot/flat within the stipulated time, the allottee is under no obligation to accept an alternate plot.(2) Interest - When....
Delay in allotment of flat – Deficiency in service – Failure to provide completion/occupation certificate by Development Authority.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.