BALWANT RAI vs Housing Board Haryana Through Its Chief

REVISION petition no. 2044 of 2011 has been filed against the impugned order dated 19.01.2011 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula ( ''the State Commission '') in appeal no. 2839 of 2008.

THE District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panipat ( ''the District Forum '') vide order dated 10.11.2006, in complaint no. 319 of 2005 has held that "it is clear that the OPs have failed to give the opportunity of being heard to the petitioner before passing the ejectment order and furthermore, the Consumer Protection Act, is made to protect the rights of the consumer. So if for the sake of arguments, it is admitted that the petitioner has defaulted in payments even then keeping in view the fact that the house is a prime necessity in the life and when a poor person has paid almost all in respect of a house in such a situation the OPS cannot eject the petitioner without giving personal hearing and at the most the OPs can charge the due amount with interest from the petitioner. So we hold that the ejectment order dated 14.06.2006 is illegal and void and the OPs are liable to hand over the possession of the house no. 513 GF, Sector - 6, Housing Board Colony, Panipat on receipt of due amount together with interest from the petitioner. For the reasons recorded above, we hold that the ejectment order passed by the OPs in respect of the house no. 513 GF, LIG, Sector 6, Housing Board Colony Panipat is illegal and void and not binding upon the petitioner further, we direct the petitioner to make the entire due amount with interest at the agreed rate of interest in between the parties within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order and thereafter the OPs shall hand over the possession of the said house to the petitioner within a period of 15 days. The complaint accepted accordingly. "

AGGRIEVED by the order of the District Forum, the respondents/ opposite parties filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission accepted the appeal and set aside the order of the District and also dismissed the complaint stating that "undisputedly, the complainant had purchased the house under Hire Purchase Tenancy Agreement and for that reasons the present controversy cannot be termed as a ''Consumer Dispute '' between the parties. The District Consumer Forum has not considered the present case in a perspective manner and as such the impugned order under challenge is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

FOR the reasons recorded above, this appeal is accepted, the impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed ". Hence, the present revision petition. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case carefully. The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/ complainant along with an application for condonation of delay of 37 days. In the application, the grounds given are: That when the petitioner came to know about the impugned order approached to the State Commission for obtaining the certified copy and received the same on 29.04.2011. After obtaining the certified copy the petitioner approached the concerned advocate on 02.05.2011 for filing the revision petition. The petitioner procured the relevant documents of the case and handed over to the advocate on 09.05.2011 for preparation of the revision and the same was prepared by counsel on 27.05.2011.

AS per the certified copy of the State Commission placed on record, the certified copy was prepared on 02.02.2011. Counsel for the petitioner could not explain as to whether and when this copy was received by the petitioner. In fact in the application this copy has not been mentioned at all. The application also not mention as to when and how, the petitioner came to know of the impugned order came to him and when he approached the State Commission for obtaining the certified copy which he has stated that he received on 29.04.2011. Thereafter he has failed to give day to day reasons for the delay of 37 days, as the revision petition was filed only on 08.06.2011.

THE petitioner is supposed to explain the day-to-day delay, but the needful has not been done. The petitioner has failed to provide ''sufficient cause '' for the delay of 37 days. This view is further supported by the following authorities. The apex court in the case of In Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), it has been held that: "It is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if this Court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the Consumer Foras ".

IN Balwant Singh Vs. Jagdish Singh and Ors., (Civil Appeal no. 1166 of 2006), decided by the Apex Court on 08.07.2010 it was held: "The party should show that besides acting bonafide, it had taken all possible steps within its power and control and had approached the Court without any unnecessary delay. The test is whether or not a cause is sufficient to see whether it could have been avoided by the party by the exercise of due care and attention. [Advanced Law Lexicon, P. Ramanatha Aiyar, 3rd Edition, 2005] ".

IN Ram Lal and Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, it has been observed; "It is, however, necessary to emphasize that even after sufficient cause has been shown a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a matter of right. The proof of a sufficient cause is a discretionary jurisdiction vested in the Court by S.5. If sufficient cause is not proved nothing further has to be done; the application for condonation has to be dismissed on that ground alone. If sufficient cause is shown then the Court has to enquire whether in its discretion it should condone the delay. This aspect of the matter naturally introduces the consideration of all relevant facts and it is at this stage that diligence of the party or its bona fides may fall for consideration; but the scope of the enquiry while exercising the discretionary power after sufficient cause is shown would naturally be limited only to such facts as the Court may regard as relevant. "

In R.B. Ramlingam Vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, 2009 (2) Scale 108, it has been observed: "We hold that in each and every case the Court has to examine whether delay in filing the special appeal leave petitions stands properly explained. This is the basic test which needs to be applied. The true guide is whether the petitioner has acted with reasonable diligence in the prosecution of his appeal/petition. "

ACCORDINGLY , we find that there is no ''sufficient cause '' to condone the delay of 37 days in filing the present revision petition. The application for condonation of delay is without any merit as well as having no legal basis and is not maintainable. Consequently, the present revision petition being time barred by limitation and is dismissed with cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only). Petitioner is directed to deposit the cost by way of demand draft in the name of ''Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission '' within four weeks from today. In case the petitioner fails to deposit the said cost within the prescribed period, then it shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum till realisation. List on 15th November 2013, for compliance.