Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(NCDRC) 1789
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
MR. JUSTICE RAM SURAT RAM MAURYA, MR. BHARATKUMAR PANDYA, JJ
JAIPUR NAGAR NIGAM – Appellant
Versus
RAJESH VERMA & ANR. – Respondent
FA/1704/2016
For the Petitioner: MR. MUKUL KUMAR & MS. HARSHA VINOY
For the Respondent: M/S. NAGPAL & ASSOCIATES
The court established that failure to deliver possession constitutes a continuing cause of action, allowing claims despite elapsed time under the Consumer Protection Act.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 24(A) - Appeals against State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission order - Complainant sought possession of a plot and compensation due to non-delivery - The court found that the Jaipur Development Authority retains liability despite claims of project transfer to Nagar Nigam - The complaint was not time-barred as it constituted a continuing cause of action. (Paras 3, 7, 8, 9)
(B) Limitation - The court reaffirmed that failure to deliver possession constitutes a continuing cause of action, thus allowing the complaint despite the time elapsed. (Paras 7, 8)
Facts of the case:
The complainant applied for a plot in 1970 but faced persistent non-delivery of possession, leading to a complaint in 2012. The authority shifted responsibilities but did not transfer liability. (Paras 5, 6)
Findings of Court:
The court held that Jaipur Development Authority is liable for possession and compensation as per the lease deed dated 15.06.1970. (Paras 9, 10)
Issues: The main issues were the liability of Jaipur Development Authority and the applicability of limitation under the Consumer Protection Act. (Paras 7, 8)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the continuing nature of the complaint allows for claims despite the time elapsed, and the authority retains liability for the plot. (Paras 8, 9)
Result: First appeal No.1704 of 2016 is allowed; first appeal No.691 of 2015 is dismissed with costs.
1. Heard Mr. Rajat Gupta, Advocate, for the Jaipur Development Authority, Mr. Mukul Kumar, Advocate for the Jaipur Nagar Nigam and Mr. Umesh Nagpal, Advocate for the respondents/complainants.
2. On the death of Naresh Kumar Verma respondent 1/1, his legal heirs have filed IA/8339/2021 in FA/619/2015 and IA/8340/2021 in FA/1704/2016 for substituting them in the array of parties. IAs are allowed and their names are substituted.
3. Both above appeals have been filed against the order of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan at Jaipur dated 01.5.2015 passed in CC/53/2012 whereby the complaint has been allowed and the appellants were directed to handover possession of a plot admeasuring 266.66 sq. yards in their development scheme in Jaipur in coordination with each other and pay compensation of Rs.10/- lacs each of them to the complainant and litigation cost of Rs.25000/-.
4. Rajesh Verma/respondent-1 filed CC/53/2012 for directing the opposite parties to handover possession of a developed plot admeasuring 266.66 sq. yards in any existing scheme and pay compensation of Rs.70/- lacs and litigation cost of Rs.50000/-.
5. The complainant stated that Jaipur Urban Improvement Trust developed a township of plotted colony in the name of Laxmi Narainpuri Scheme and invited applications for allotment of developed plot. The complainant applied for allotment of a plot in the above scheme. Jaipur Urban Improvement Trust vide allotment letter No.1012 dated 12.01.1970 allotted plot No.B-184 area 266.66 sq. yards in Laxmi Narainpuri Scheme. The complainant deposited the requisite amount vide receipt no.9533, book no.76 on 20.01.1970. Thereafter, the urban improvement trust asked for requisite stamp duty which was supplied and a least deed was executed of the above plot in favour of the complainant on 15.06.1970. However, on the spot there was some encroachment, therefore, the possession was not delivered to the complainant. The complainant wrote a letter to UIT, Jaipur in August, 1970 to deliver possession of the said plot after its measurement and demarcation on the spot. However, nothing was done. The complainant used to visit the office of UIT, Jaipur again and again but except some assurance nothing was done. In the meantime, Jaipur Development Authority has been constituted under Jaipur Urban Development Act, 1982. Jaipur Development Authority gave a public notice inviting applications from the aggrieved persons in respect of the housing development project initiated by UIT, Jaipur. In response to the advertisement of Jaipur Development Authority, the complainant gave an application for handing over the possession of plot no.B-184 area 266.66 sq. yards in Laxmi Narainpuri Scheme. Thereafter, personal hearing was held on 06.01.1977 in which all the papers including the lease deed were shown to the authority but nothing was done. Later on the complainant received a letter dated 23.03.1990 from Jaipur Development Authority requiring the complainant to give option for allotment of alternate plot of similar size in other scheme. In pursuance of the letter dated 23.03.1990 the complainant gave his option on 11.05.1990 for allotment of alternate plot of similar size in other development scheme. Thereafter the matter was pursued time to time but nothing was done. Later on, Jaipur Development Authority vide letter dated 12.07.1995 informed the complainant to approach Jaipur Nagar Nigam as the entire project of Laxmi Narainpuri Scheme has been handed over to Jaipur Nagar Nigam on 13.12.1992. The complainant thereafter approached Jaipur Nagar Nigam, Mahapor. When the complainant sought for information under Right to Information Act then the complainant was informed vide letter dated 20.05.2011 that scheme of Laxmi Naraipuri was under the jurisdiction of Commissioner, Planning, Nagar Nigam, Hawa Mahal Zone. Later on by another information dated 13.03.2012 the complainant was informed that the scheme of Laxmi Narainpuri was being look
