AGRA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs KM. PRAGATI CHAURASIA

THESE are two appeals under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act against judgment and order dated 19.9.1997 passed by District Consumer Forum-II, Agra in Complaint Case No. 1486/1993 and execution order dated 26.4.2003 passed in Execution Case No. 21/1998.

INITIALLY a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was preferred by Km. Pragati Chaurasia with the allegation that she had applied for allotment of a house in the scheme meant for weaker section and the ground floor portion of the house was estimated at Rs. 15,100/- and the first floor was estimated at Rs. 13,500/-. Consequently she was allotted house No. E-3, 148 vide order dated 3.3.1989 and the total cost was fixed at Rs. 17,700/-. She got possession of the house on 9.4.1991. She deposited on 17.3.1989 a sum of Rs. 4,020/-. It was further alleged that facility of water and electricity was to be provided by the opposite party but the same was not done and for getting these facilities, the complainant had to incur Rs. 5,000/- and consequently she filed a complaint for claiming the sum of Rs. 20,527.47. In the written statement the appellant, Agra Development Authority, admitted the allotment of the first floor of the house on 3.3.1989 and obtaining possession of the house on 9.4.1991. It was further pleaded that she after taking delivery, did not deposit the instalments. Demand of Rs. 5,442.10 was made. Again a demand of Rs. 6,226.79 was made on 7.12.1993. It was candidly made to understand to the complainant that she was in arrear of Rs. 20,527.47 but she did not pay the sum.

The learned District Forum after perusal of the material and after hearing the submission, directed the opposite party to execute the sale deed by 28.10.1997 after accepting a sum of Rs. 18,454.47 but the same was not done. In compliance thereof the complainant waited for some time.

THEN approaches were made by the complainant''s learned Counsel and then vide letter dated 25.10.1997 the Property Officer of the appellant ordered that the complainant should appear on 28.10.1997 along with a sum of Rs. 18,454.47 and for getting the house registered a consolidated sum of Rs. 12,050.05 was also demanded along with non-judicial stamp paper of Rs. 50/- as also processing fee and other requirements. The complainant in compliance of the above deposited the above amount. However, no compliance was made. Consequently Execution Case No. 21/1998 arising out of Complaint Case No. 1486/1993 was preferred. Even in execution case it was ordered, but the compliance was not made and hence the Appeal No. 1346/SC/2003.

THE case was called out in revised list. THEre was no one for the respondent whereas appellant was represented by Mr. R.K. Gupta. The main thrust of the submission in support of the appeals was that the District Forum without taking into consideration the facts, came to the arbitrary conclusion whereas there was legal obligations to make payment as desired and demanded by the appellant which was not done by the complainant. Prior to entering into the merits of the appeal, it is necessary to appreciate as to whether the appeal in question is barred by limitation. Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act provides that the appeal can be preferred within 30 days of the passing of the order under Section 12 but in the instant case the appeal was preferred on 26.5.2003. There is no condonation application and no delay has been satisfactorily explained. It is not understandable as to when the order was passed on 19.9.1997, why the appellant kept silent for such a long time. It is not the case that they did not have the knowledge of the case because in the Forum below the case was contested by the appellant''s Counsel after putting in appearance and obviously the knowledge was there. Even contest was made in the execution application. They preferred the appeal only after getting no satisfactory result in the execution proceedings. Thus the appeal is heavily barred by limitation. Even on merits the appellant has no legs to stand. There has been a discussion of the facts by the learned District Forum and the ''conclusions'' have been properly arrived for facilitating the complainant to get the registration of the house in question in her favour by depositing the amount. This amount has already been deposited. Possession of the house in question has already been handed over. It is clear in the order dated 26.4.2003 that the contractor did not provide necessary facilities in the house and the defects were still there. Even if there was some delay in paying the instalments, it can be well said to be counter-balanced. The complainant belongs to the weaker class. The element of compassion is also there in her favour. The order on merits does not suffer even otherwise. Thus both the appeals are liable to be dismissed. ORDER Both the appeals are dismissed. It is imperative that the appellant may comply with the orders passed in the complaint case and in the execution case by the District Forum, if not already made, without any further delay. No further demand of alleged arrear will be made. There will be no order as to the costs. Appeals dismissed.