Chandrawati vs DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

THE present appeal, filed by the appellant, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''), is directed against order dated 4.2.2000, passed by District Forum-III in Complaint Case No. 3789/98 - entitled Shri Om Prakash v. Deputy Director, Delhi Development Authority.

THE facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated are that one Shri Om Prakash had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act, before the District Forum, averring that his mother Smt. Chandrawati had been allotted a platform (stall), bearing No. F-31 in the Vegetable Market, CSC, Bodela in the year 1988 for Rs. 34,900/-. It was stated, in the complaint, that said Smt. Chandrawati had deposited a sum of Rs. 8,665/- as registration amount with the respondent DDA on 9.1.1989. It was stated that thereafter on 31.10.1992, a letter was received by said Smt. Chandrawati from the respondent DDA asking her to deposit a sum of Rs. 3,350/- together with 24 instalments, each of Rs. 1,606/- per month towards the cost of that platform. It was stated that said Smt. Chandrawati deposited all the 24 instalments from March, 1992 to February, 1994. THE grievance of the complainant, in the complaint, was that the respondent DDA did not pay any interest on the registration amount, and the cost of the platform (stall) charged from the complainant was Rs. 50,899/- as against a sum of Rs. 34,900/-. It was further stated by the complainant that the complainant requested the DDA to refund the amount charged in excess and to pay interest on the amount of registration but no relief was given to him by the respondent DDA. In the complaint, filed by said Shri Om Prakash, it was prayed that suitable relief be directed to be given to him. The claim of the complainant, Shri Om Prakash, in the District Forum, was resisted by the respondent DDA and in the written statement/written version, filed on behalf of the respondent, it was stated that the complaint, filed by the complainant, was barred by limitation in terms of provisions contained under Section 24-A of the Act. It was also stated that complainant, Shri Om Prakash had no right to file the complaint as the platform (stall) in question was allotted to Smt. Chandrawati and not to the complainant, Shri Om Prakash. It was stated that a provisional demand letter was issued to said Smt. Chandrawati asking her to deposit provisionally a sum of Rs. 6,865/-, which was deposited by the allottee. It was further stated that thereafter the revised price of the platform in question was calculated by the Finance Department and on the basis of calculation, made by the Finance Department, a revised demand letter was issued to the allottee on 31.1.1992 asking her to deposit a sum of Rs. 3,350/-, being 25% of the cost of the platform. It was stated that the balance 75% of the total premium was payable by the allottee in 24 equal monthly instalments with interest @ 6% per annum. It was stated that the allottee accepted the revised demand, deposited a sum of Rs. 3,490/- on 9.4.1992 and possession letter was issued to her on 5.6.1992. It was stated that the complainant was not entitled to any relief.

The learned District Forum, vide impugned order, has dismissed the complaint.

FEELING aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the present appeal under Section 15 of the Act. We have heard the authorised representative of the appellant at length on the question of admission of present appeal and have also carefully gone through the documents/ material on record. The order, being impugned, in the present proceedings, was passed by the learned District Forum on 4.2.2000. In terms of the provisions contained in Section 15 of the Act, the present appeal should have been filed within a period of thirty days from the date of the order. However, proviso to the above section provides that the State Commission may entertain an appeal even after the expiry of the above said period of thirty days, if it is satisfied that there was ''sufficient cause'' for not filing the same within the above said period. The words ''sufficient cause'', occurring in proviso to Section 15 of the Act are of utmost significance. As per settled law, culled out from various judicial decisions, the above expression ''sufficient cause'', though deserves to receive a liberal construction, yet, a just and equitable balance has to be maintained between the right secured by the respondent as a result of the expiry of the prescribed period of limitation and the injustice of depriving the appellant of adjudication of his grievances on the merits of his appeal for causes beyond his reasonable control, which means the cause is bona fide and beyond the control of the appellant. Though no hard and fast line can be drawn as to what affords ''sufficient cause'' in a given case, yet, again as per settled law, any cause which prevents a person from approaching the Court within time is ''sufficient cause''. In doing so, it is the test of a reasonable man in normal circumstances which has to be applied.

ADMITTEDLY, the present appeal has not been filed by the appellant within the prescribed period of thirty days. The same has been filed much after the prescribed period of limitation, on 29.12.2000. No application stating any cause what to say ''sufficient cause'' for not filing the appeal in time has been filed and, therefore, the present appeal, filed by the appellant, is barred by limitation. The present appeal, filed by the appellant, besides being barred by limitation, is also devoid of substance on merits. Firstly, because in the impugned order, the appellant was not a party. The complaint against the Deputy Director, DDA was filed by one Shri Om Prakash and not by the appellant, Smt. Chandrawati. Secondly, the complaint, filed by said Shri Om Prakash, in the District Forum, besides being barred by limitation in terms of the provisions contained under Section 24-A of the Act was devoid of substance on merits also because said Smt. Chandrawati was allotted the platform in question in 1988 and had taken the possession of the same in the year 1992 after depositing the requisite amount demanded by the respondent. Therefore, in ''equity'' also she cannot be permitted to agitate her grievances with regard to the above said allotment at this belated stage. In our opinion, in the given facts, the learned District Forum, was fully justified in dismissing the complaint, filed by said Shri Om Prakash. The order being impugned in the present proceedings, suffers from no infirmity so as to call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its appellate powers. The present appeal, filed by the appellant, viewed from all angles, is devoid of substance. The same merits dismissal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed in limine with no order as to cost. Appeal dismissed in limine.