DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs I.J.MADAN

THE present appeal has been filed assailing the orders of the District Forum-II dated 30.4.1997 in Complaint Case No. 974/94 - entilted Shri I.J. Madan v. Delhi Development Authority.

THE brief facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, are that the respondent had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') before the District Forum, stating therein, that the respondent had been allotted a flat bearing No. 103, GH-13, Paschim Puri, New Delhi by the appellant/DDA. THEreafter, the respondent was required to deposit an amount of Rs. 4,31,453/- within 60 days of the receipt of the allotment letter, but the same could only be deposited by the respondent after the expiry of 60 days, with interest, in terms of the demand letter. It is alleged by the respondent that the appellant, after a delay of about 7 months demanded a further amount of Rs. 16,802/- towards interest and API on 3.12.1993, which was paid by the respondent under protect on 20.12.1993. THEreafter the possession letter dated 16.1.1994 was issued and the possession of the flat was also handed over to the respondent. However, the respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum praying for compensation on account of delay in issuance of possession letter, as well as for the refund of Rs. 16,802/- alongwith interest. THE respondent also sought the refund of cost of the flat paid in excess by him alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. The appellant, in its reply/written version filed before the District Forum, raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the complaint, with respect to the refund of price of the flat, on the ground, that the question of pricing cannot be gone into by the Fora under the Act and also relied upon the decision of Hon''ble National Commission in the case of DDA v. A.N. Sehgal, reported as I (1996) CPJ 34 (NC). As regards the additional demand of Rs. 16,802/- charged as interest and API from the respondent, it was alleged by the appellant/DDA, that since the respondent/complainant had deposited the cost of the flat after the expiry of the stipulated period, therefore, the interest and API of Rs. 16,902/- had been charged for the said delay. It was also denied by the appellant, that there was any delay, in issuing the possession letter to the respondent.

The learned District Forum partly allowed the complaint of the respondent vide impugned order and ordered for the refund of Rs. 16,802/- together with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of its deposit, till the date of its payment and also allowed interest @ 18% per annum on the price of the flat, i.e. Rs. 4,31,453/- from 1.10.1993 to 17.1.1994 and also ordered the payment of cost of Rs. 1,000/- in favour of the respondent.

AGGRIEVED by the said order, the appellant/DDA has filed the present appeal before us. The present appeal has been filed beyond the statutory period of 30 days, as allowed in terms of provisions of Section 15 of the Act. The reason assigned by the appellant for the said delay is that the certified copy of the order dated 30.4.1997 was received by the appellant on 16.5.1997 and thereafter the file had been sent to the Junior Law Officer (Housing) for his opinion who after giving his opinion marked the same to Director, Housing on 11.6.1997. Nowever, no explanation or details of the movement of the file from 16.5.1997 to 11.6.1997 have been furnished nor any reasonable explanation has been given for the delay of one month in furnishing opinion by the J.L.O. As per the averments of the appellant/DDA, the concerned file had been further asigned to the concerned panel Lawyer for preparation of memorandum and grounds of appeal on 13.6.1997 but again no cogent reason has been assigned as to why the appeal could only be filed after a lapse of another month on 17.7.1997. Thus, no cause whatsoever has been shown for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal. Mere procedural delay without valid reasons, is no ground for condonation. In the circumstances we are not inclined to condone the delay in filing the present appeal, as no "sufficient cause", as per the requirements of proviso to Section 15 of the Act, have been assigned for the delay. In our above views, we are fortified by a decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case P.K. Ramchandran v. State of Kerala & Anr., reported as AIR 1998 SC 2276. In the said decision the Hon''ble Supreme Court has held : "The High Court does not appear to have examined the reply filed by the appellant as reference to the same is conspicuous by its absence from the order. We are not satisfied that in the facts and circumstances of this case, any explanation, much less a reasonable or satisfactory one had been offered by the respondent-State for condonation of the inordinate delay of 565 days. Law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribe and the Courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. The discretion exercised by the High Court was, thus, neither proper nor judicious. The order condoning the delay cannot be sustained."

(Emphasis supplied) The Hon''ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir in the case of State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Smt. Ram Kali, reported as AIR 1987 Jammu and Kashmir 71, while considering the question whether the norms for condonation of delay should be different for Govt. or a Statutory Body as compared to an individual, has held : "The delay in this case has accrued as the matter was referred to the Law Department and the Office of the Executive Engineer, Chennai Hydel Project who is dealing with the case and the Govt. office such as, Law Department etc. were also at Srinagar and the matter being in rotation through proper channels took time. In our opinion, the abovesaid explanation without mentioning the specific days and the reason for delay explaining each day of delay is no cause at all much less as sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the revision or an appeal within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. We are, therefore, in full agreement with the ratio of the authority of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, AIR 1973 AP 43 (supra), and hold that no exception is made for the Government in the matter of condonation of delay which is not satisfactorily explained in terms of the Act."

(Emphasis supplied)

ON similar grounds for condonation of delay as stated in the condonation application in the present case, we have in our earlier decision in the case of Delhi Development Authority v. R.C. Jain, reported is I (2000) CPJ 141, relying upon the decision of National Commission in the case of Maria Francis Ajijia & Anr. v. Rev. Fr. R. Ratichgar, reported as II (1994) CPJ 108 (NC), held that mere procedural delay does not constitute sufficient cause in order to exercise our discretion for condonation of the same. Therefore, the present appeal, being barred by limitation, is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. Even on merits, the appellant has no case. The reason assigned by the appellant/DDA for the delay in issuing the possession letter is devoid of merit. It is contended by the appellant that the additional demand of Rs. 16,802/- on account of interest charges and API, were paid by the respondent on 20.12.1993 and the possession letter was issued on 16.1.1994, thus there was no delay in the issuance of the possession letter. However, the appellant/DDA has failed to explain the fact that though the demand for the price of the flat was made on 4.5.1993 and the respondent had deposited the same by 14.8.1993 alongwith the relevant documents, why, the issuance of a further demand on account of interest and API was raised on 3.12.1993, i.e. after a delay of about 7 months. In fact the said demand could have been raised alongwith the original demand in May, 1993 itself or shortly thereafter. Thus, the delay in handing over the possession to the respondent remains unexplained. Further, the appellant/DDA has also failed to furnish the details and justification for the demand of Rs. 16,802/- dated 3.12.1993. The appellant has admitted in its reply filed before the District Forum that the interest, for the period of delay by the respondent, in depositing the price of the flat, had already been charged separately, therefore, there was no occasion for the appellant/DDA to raise a second demand on the same ground. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere in the well-considered order of the District Forum.

THE present appeal, being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. THE cost of the present proceedings is fixed at Rs. 1,000/-. THE appellant is directed to comply with the directions as per the impugned order as well as make the payment of the cost of the present proceedings within 60 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which, the appellant/DDA will be liable to pay interest @ 12% per annum on the total amount awarded from the date of this order till actual payment. THE present appeal is disposed of in above terms. Appeal dismissed.