DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs SUDERSHAN BHARIJA

[1] Petitioner/Respondent has filed the present revision petition under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ''Act'') challenging the impugned order dated 16.5.2008 passed by State Commission, Delhi in F.A. No.716 of 2005, vide which appeal of the petitioner was dismissed.

[2] Brief facts are, that Respondent/Complainant filed a consumer complaint in year 2003 stating therein, that in year 1981, petitioner floated a scheme by the name of "LIG Rohini Residential Plotted Scheme, 1981" (for short, ''Rohini Scheme''). Under the said scheme, registration were invited from general public fulfilling specific eligibility criteria for allotment of residential plots of land. The plots of land were to be allotted by draw of lots within five years of the launching of the scheme. Respondent applied for registration in the said Rohini Scheme and his application No.142142 in the said scheme was registered under the priority no.15139. An amount of Rs.2,000/- was deposited. However, respondent received no allotment under the aforesaid scheme in last more than two decades.

[3] In year 2002, petitioner floated another scheme by the name "Narela Housing Scheme, 2002". Brochure of the said scheme provided in Condition No.1, that waiting registrants of old scheme including Rohini Scheme, 1981 could also apply under this scheme for any category of flat as per their requirement. The flats picturized by the petitioner in its brochure were of ''A'' class construction. In the preamble to scheme, petitioner painted a very rosy picture of the scheme and compared it to other highly successful schemes, namely Rohini and Dwarka, reputation of which schemes are a matter of public knowledge. The respondent being desirous of obtaining a flat as he had been waiting for the last 20 years, filled up the required documents as laid down in condition no.7 of the said brochure. Respondent applied for an MIG flat in lieu of his old LIG flat under application No.1245. Vide its letter dated 5.7.2002, petitioner informed the respondent that flat no.560 of MIG category on fourth floor at Sector A-10, Pocket 6 of "Narela Housing Scheme" had been allotted to him. However, his utter shock, respondent found, that unit/flat being offered to him was an old construction, which had been constructed by the petitioner about 9-10 years back. The same was in dilapidated condition. There was no habitation in the area worth even the name. The condition of the area was totally contrary to the advertisement published by the petitioner. The brochure had depicted that plots of ''A'' class construction with other facilities to be provided to make the offer attractive for the applicants. Respondent immediately made an enquiry from the office of the petitioner. To his shock, he came to know that the flats being allotted to the respondent and other similarly situated allottees, were old flats which were built somewhere in 1995 or prior to that. It was clear from the conditions of the flat, that petitioner was trying to write off old flats to the public in general at a higher price without making them aware of its year/date of construction. The same amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.

[4] The respondent forthwith, wrote a letter dated 1.8.2002 to the petitioner for cancellation of the MIG flat No.560 allotted to him under Narela Scheme and also sent a D.D. of Rs.1,000/- as cancellation charges as per the condition No.13(1) of the brochure. It is pertinent to mention here, that respondent had made it clear in the letter itself that his priority no. under the old Rohini Scheme shall be retained. In response to his request for cancellation of the Narela Flat, he received a letter dated 14.8.2002 from the petitioner in which respondent was informed that his priority number cannot be retained and he had the option either to accept the allotted unit or to submit the original documents of Rohini Scheme for refund of his registration money. It is pertinent to point out here, that in condition no.13, there is no mention that if the plot allotted under the new scheme is surrendered/cancelled by any allottee, then allottee will also have to forego his old registration number and return his original documents under which he had opted to migrate to the new scheme. Keeping in view the same, the priority number of the respondent in the old scheme i.e. Rohini Scheme could not be cancelled and would survive in spite of the cancellation opted under the new scheme. Respondent again wrote a letter dated 11.9.2002, in which he clearly mentioned that petitioner was trying to deprive him of his priority number under Rohini Scheme for which he had been waiting for an allotment for last more than 20 years and petitioner was clearly trying to twist his arms to force him to buy old flat for the price of new flat. No reply was received from the petitioner. Therefore, respondent served legal notice dated 17.11.2002 on the petitioner. Thereafter, vide letter No. FM 339 (953) 02/NHS/NA/661 dated 2.7.03, petitioner turned down his demand and informed him that, he (respondent ) will have to forgo the old priority number of the old scheme. Further, respondent was required to submit the original documents for refund of registration amount. Thus, petitioner has made misrepresentation by not revealing the true date of construction of Narela flats and have caused harassment to the respondent. Therefore, it amounts grave deficiency of service on their part and they liable to be penalized for the same. Accordingly, respondent file a consumer complaint against the petitioner before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi (for short, ''District Forum'') praying for the following reliefs; The OPs may be directed to restore and maintain the complainant''s priority number 15139 (registration No.142142) under the LIG Rohini Plotted Housing Scheme, 1981 and to allot to the complainant a plot of land as shall fall due to him in sequence to his seniority under the said scheme.

The OPs be directed to refund the registration amount deposited by the complainant under the Narela Scheme alongwith interest @ 18% from the date of deposit till the date of realization.

To pay the complainant an amount of Rs.50,000/- for unnecessary harassment and mental agony caused to the complainant by the OPs.

To pay to the complainant litigation expenses of Rs.10,000.

[5] Petitioner in its written statement has admitted, that it had launched a scheme for allotment of plots in Rohini Scheme, under Janta, LIG and MIG categories in the year 1981. Petitioner also admitted, that it has floated "Narela Housing Scheme 2002". Under this scheme, applications were invited from the General Public for allotment of HIG, MIG, LIG/EHS and Janta flats for any category. The waiting registrants holding a registration with DDA under "New Pattern Housing Scheme, 1979", "Ambedkar Avas Yojana-1989", "Janta Housing Scheme-1996" and "Rohini Residential Plotted Scheme-1981", could also apply under this scheme. The interested persons were free to have the option to apply for any category of flat as per their requirement and affordability, irrespective of their registration under any category. The successful waiting registrant of old schemes applying for the flat under this scheme, would forfeit their right for further allotment of flat or plot under the relevant scheme, they are already registered with the DDA.

[6] Petitioner also admitted, that respondent has submitted his application No.1245 in "Narela Housing Scheme, 2002", vide registration No.15139 (application No.142142). This was towards registration deposit under "Rohini Residential Scheme 1981" for a LIG category plot. Against this registration, Priority No.13519 was assigned by the petitioner. In the draw held on 05.07.2002, Flat No.560, Sector A-10, Pocket-6, GR-1 (TF) under MIG category was allotted to him. It is however stated, that respondent submitted his application dated 02.08.2002, that he was not interested in the said MIG flat. He submitted demand draft for Rs.1,000/- also as cancellation charges with the request that his priority No. under LIG Rohini Scheme 1981 be retained. The Housing Branch immediately informed the respondent on 14.08.2002, that his request regarding retention of priority under "LIG Rohini Scheme 198"1 was considered but could not be acceded to under the orders of the competent Authority.

[7] In Para No.14 of its written statement, petitioner has admitted that the flat allotted to the respondent is an old construction. However, all basic amenities and infrastructure facilities were and are available in the Sector and Pocket at Narela, where flat to the respondent was allotted in the draw held on 5.7.2002. Thus, respondent is not entitled for any claim for keeping his old priority number in the Old Scheme i.e. Rohini Scheme.

[8] District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi ( for short, ''District Forum''), vide order dated 5.3.2005 allowed the complaint and passed following directions; "Consequently, we direct O.P. to give the old priority no. i.e. 15139 in the Rohini Housing Scheme, 1981 to the complainant and to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation to the complainant towards deficiency in service rendered to the complainant and for adopting unfair trade practices including harassment and mental agony caused to the complainant in the facts and circumstances established before us and further to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards cost of litigation charges."

[9] Being aggrieved, petitioner filed appeal before the State Commission which dismissed the same finding no merit in the same.

[10] Hence, present revision.

[11] We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

[12] It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner, that as respondent had applied under "Narela Housing Scheme 2002" and was declared successful, therefore he had no right under "Rohini Residential Scheme". It is further submitted that parties are bound by the terms and conditions in the brochure. Therefore, State Commission erred in directing the petitioner to give old priority number of "Rohini Plotting Scheme 1981" to the respondent.

[13] It is further submitted, that when possession of flat is given it is made in a habitable condition. All the basic amenities are available in the area.

[14] On the other hand it is submitted by learned counsel for the respondent, that respondent had applied for cancellation of the allotment in "Narela Scheme" in less than 4 weeks of receipt of the letter of allotment. On receipt of the letter, respondent went to see the flat allotted to him and it was found that the same was constructed in the year 1995. The petitioner had made provision for cancellation of application for ''Narela Scheme'', in condition 13 of its brochure. Respondent had applied in accordance and in time limit prescribed in the said scheme. There was no requirement in the said scheme that upon cancellation, the applicant shall not be restored to his seniority in the original scheme. The respondent having withdrawn in accordance with rules, cannot be termed as "successful" candidate for the "Narela Scheme".

[15] District Forum in its order has held; "The background of the Narela Township quoted above is no doubt, gives a very rosy picture about the Narela Housing Scheme, 02 and allures the consumers to have a flat in the scheme. We have given our full consideration to the relevant provisions of the scheme (quoted above) that the successful waiting registrants of old scheme applying for allotment of flat under this scheme will forfeit their right for further allotment of flat or plot under the relevant scheme, they are already registered with the DDA. But we cannot ignore the fact that O.P. itself had admitted that the flat allotted to the complainant was an old one and in deporable condition. Though it has stated that the complainant ought to have approached the concerned authorities for such default in the flat in question so that O.P. could have been made the flat livable within 15 to 30 days but it has not come forward to state that the area where the flat in question is situated is fully developed as is depicted in their brochure referred to above. The averment made in the written statement filed on behalf of the O.P. to the effect that many possession letters to the allotees are of Narela flat have been issued is not suffice to establish that the allottees thereof are satisfied with the construction, conditions & surroundings of the flats. Even if we presume that other allottees are satisfied but that fact itself did not suo moto establish that the flat allotted to the complainant was free from any defect and that it was in consonance with the situation and conditions and was livable as depicted in the concerned brochure. We do not find any affidavit on record to establish the fact that the area where the flat in dispute is located is fully developed as depicted in the brochure and habitable. On the contrary, as already stated, the O.P. has admitted that the house allotted to complainant was an old built structure. The O.P. has itself considered this aspect and has improved upon its averments in the Brochure for DDA-Festival Housing Scheme, 2004 whereby flats were offered on "as is where is basis" and the relevant portions reads as under;

"Details of flats under this scheme is given in annexure ''A'' . Flats are given on ''as is where is basis''. It would be presumed that applicant has seen the property before making application. All the flats are already constructed and are ready for occupation."

No doubt the complainant is a successful allottee but the flat allotted to him is not the standard as picturized in the brochure by which the complainant was attracted to migrate to the scheme after waiting of about 20 years in the Rohini Scheme, 1981. As such the allotment as a successful allottee is nothing but a mirage for the complainant and is of no use to him. In the situation and circumstances as established in the present complaint to use the term as successful waiting registrant of old scheme for the complainant would be unjust, and would be far from equity fairness and justice.

O.P. has not at all denied that the Rohini Scheme, 1981 has no waiting list or that it is totally closed or exhausted. As such we can draw an inference that said scheme is still in operation and has got ''registrants'' in the waiting queue."

[16] Whereas, the State Commission while dismissing the appeal, in its impugned order observed; "4. Once having opted for the Narela Housing Scheme and having become successful in the allotment, the minimum expectation of the respondent was that he would be offered a new flat. But to its utter surprise and shock, the flat allotted to him was very old and was in dilapidated condition. This scheme was floated in the year 2002 but the houses were constructed in the year 1994-95.

In our view, such a practice on the part of the appellant was highly deceitful, unfair and concealment of actual fact as no person would opt for an old flat in the year 2002 though the houses were constructed in 1994-95.

However, in view of the contention of the counsel for the respondent that the Rohini Housing Scheme, 1981 is still in operation but his number has not reached or not matured for allotment, we do not find any merit in the appeal and dismiss the same as the respondent has already surrendered the flat.

The payment shall be made within one month from the date of receipt of this order."

[17] The points which arise for consideration in the present petition are, as to whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner and whether petitioner has indulged in "unfair trade practice".

[18] For deciding the controversy between the parties, we have to advert to the following provisions of the Act, namely; "Section 2(1)(g)

"Deficiency" means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service;

Section 2(1)(o)

"Service" means service of any description which is made available to potential users and includes, but not limited to, the provision of facilities in connection with banking, financing insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, board or lodging or both, housing construction, entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news or other information, but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service;

Section 2(1)(r)

"Unfair trade practice" means a trade practice which, for the purpose of promoting the sale, use or supply of any goods or for the provision of any service, adopts any unfair method or unfair or deceptive practice including any of the following practices, namely;

(1) the practice of making any statement, whether orally or in writing or by visible representation which,

(i) falsely represents that the goods are of a particular standard, quality, quantity, grade, composition, style or model;

(ii) falsely represents that the services are of a particular standard, quality or grade;

(iii) falsely represents any re-built, second-hand, renovated, reconditioned or old goods as new goods;

(iv) represents that the goods or services have sponsorship, approval, performance, characteristics, accessories, uses or benefits which such goods or services do not have.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx"

[19] It is an admitted case of the parties, that respondent had registered himself in the year 1981 in the "Rohini Housing Scheme". It is also not in dispute, that till year 2002 petitioner has not allotted any plot/flat to the respondent. There is no explanation at all on behalf of the petitioner as to why after collecting huge amount of money from the general public as registration fee etc., it did not take any steps for allotting plot/flat for more than 21 years. Therefore, deficiency on the part of the petitioner is writ large in this case.

[20] It is also manifestly clear from the record of this case, that Petitioner Authority having miserably failed in allotting plot to the respondent and others till 2002 and in order to cover up its inefficiency and deficiency, floated a new scheme by the name of "Narela Housing Scheme 2002". Thus, Petitioner Authority by not honouring its "Rohini Housing Scheme", allured the respondent to join its new scheme of "''Narela Housing Scheme 2002". Accordingly, respondent applied in this new scheme in lieu of the old scheme. However as per respondent''s misfortune, the Petitioner Authority offered him old flat in the year 2002, which was constructed as far as back in the year 1994-95. The fact that old flat was offered by the petitioner to the respondent, has been admitted by petitioner itself in its written statement.

[21] Under these circumstances, the respondent was fully justified to refuse offer of allotment of old flat (constructed in the year 1994-95) in the year 2002. Thus, deficiency in service and deceptive practice adopted by the Petitioner Authority being writ large in this case, it had the audacity to shift the entire blame on the respondent. It would not be out of place to mention here, that petitioner had not given any firm date of possession of the plots to those applicants registered in the year 1981 for "Rohini Housing Scheme", which clearly is an "Unfair Trade Practice".

[22] It would also be interesting to note, that Petitioner Authority is sitting over the money deposited by the respondent as far as back in the year 1981, till date. There is no explanation as to why petitioner has not refunded that money so far, if respondent is not eligible for allotment of plot.

[23] It is well settled that under Section 21 (b) of the Act, scope of revisional jurisdiction is very limited. Under Section 21 of the Act, this Commission can interfere with the order of the State Commission where such State Commission has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.

[24] Hon''ble Supreme Court in Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta vs. United India Insurance Company, 2011 3 Scale 654 has observed; "Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21 (b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view that what was taken by the two Forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken, by setting aside the concurrent finding of two fora."

[25] Hence, we find no reasons to disagree with the findings of fact given by both the fora below. Further, we have no hesitation in holding that Petitioner Authority has adopted "unfair method" as well as "deceptive practice" in promoting such schemes. These acts of the Petitioner Authority are squarely covered within the meaning of "Unfair Trade Practice" as defined under the Act.

[26] The Petitioner Authority after having taken registration amount from the respondent in the year 1981, is still enjoying that money for last many years. Now, when petitioner is not in a position to allot the flat in a habitable condition to the respondent, then why it is still withholding respondents'' money. There is no reasonable and plausible explanation at all in this regard from the side of the petitioner. We deplore such "unfair trade practices" being adopted by the Petitioner Authority, which is a Public Body.

[27] Petitioner Authority in the present case, "wants to have the cake and eat it too", as admittedly it is enjoying possession of the plot/flat as well as amount paid by the respondent. On the other hand, respondent after having paid the amount in the year 1981 is still empty handed.

[28] Such type of unscrupulous act on the part of Petitioner Authority should be dealt with heavy hands, who after grabbing the money from the applicants, enjoy and utilize their money but do not hand over the plot/flat, on one pretext or the other. Petitioner wants the respondent to run from one fora to other, so that petitioner can go on enjoying respondent''s money without any hindrance.

[29] It is well settled, that no leniency should be shown to such type of litigants who in order to cover up their own fault and negligence, goes on filing meritless petition in consumer foras. Equity demands that such unscrupulous litigants whose only aim and object is to deprive the opposite party fruits of the decree, must be dealt with heavy hands. Unscrupulous developer like Petitioner Authority, who after taking money from the applicants, do not perform its part of obligation, should not be spared. A strong message is required to be sent to such type of Statutory Authority, that this Commission is not helpless in such type of matters.

[30] It is a well-known fact, that courts across the country are saddled with large number of cases. Public Bodies indulgences further burden them. Time and again, courts have been expressing their displeasure at the Government/Public Bodies compulsive litigation habit but a solution to this alarming trend is a distant dream. The judiciary is now imposing costs upon Government/Public Bodies not only when it pursue cases which can be avoided but also when it forces the public to do so.

[31] Public Bodies spent more money on contesting cases than the amount they might have to pay to the claimants. In addition thereto, precious time, effort and other resources go down the drain in vain. Public Bodies are possibly an apt example of being penny wise, pound-foolish. Rise in frivolous litigation is also due to the fact that Public Sector Undertakings though having large number of legal personnel under their employment, do not examine the cases properly and force poor litigants to approach the Court.

[32] The Apex Court in Bikaner Urban Improvement Trust Vs. Mohal Lal, 2010 CTJ 121 (Supreme Court) (CP) has made significant observations which have material bearing, namely, "4. It is a matter of concern that such frivolous and unjust litigation by Governments and statutory authorities are on the increase. Statutory Authorities exist to discharge statutory functions in public interest. They should be responsible litigants. They cannot raise frivolous and unjust objections, nor act in a callous and highhanded manner. They cannot behave like some private litigants with profiteering motives. Nor can they resort to unjust enrichment. They are expected to show remorse or regret when their officers act negligently or in an overbearing manner. When glaring wrong acts by their officers is brought to their notice, for which there is no explanation or excuse, the least that is expected is restitution/restoration to the extent possible with appropriate compensation. Their harsh attitude in regard to genuine grievances of the public and their indulgence in unwarranted litigation requires to the corrected.

This Court has repeatedly expressed the view that the Governments and statutory authorities should be model or ideal litigants and should not put forth false, frivolous, vexatious, technical (but unjust) contentions to obstruct the path of justice. We may refer to some of the decisions in this behalf.

5.1 In Dilbagh Rai Jarry V. Union of India, 1974 3 SCC 554, where this Court extracted with approval, the following statement (from an earlier decision of the Kerala High Court.):

"The State, under our Constitution, undertakes economic activities in a vast and widening public sector and inevitably gets involved in disputes with private individuals. But it must be remembered that the State is no ordinary party trying to win a case against one of its own citizens by hook or by crook; for the State''s interest is to meet honest claims, vindicate a substantial defence and never to score a technical point or overreach a weaker party to avoid a just liability or secure an unfair advantage, simply because legal devices provide such an opportunity. The State is a virtuous litigant and looks with unconcern on immoral forensic successes so that if on the merits the case is weak. Government shows a willingness to settle the dispute regardless of prestige and other lesser motivations, which move private parties to fight in Court. The lay-out on litigation costs and execution time by the State and its agencies is so staggering these days because of the large amount of litigation in which it is involved that a positive and wholesome policy of cutting back on the volume of law suits by the twin methods of not being tempted into forensic showdowns where a reasonable adjustment is feasible and ever offering to extinguish a pending proceeding on just terms, giving the legal mentors of Government some initiative and authority in this behalf. I am not indulging in any judicial homily but only echoing the dynamic national policy on State litigation evolved at a Conference of Law Ministers of India way back in 1957."

5.2 In Madras Port Trust vs. Hymanshu International by its Proprietor V. Venkatadri (Dead), 1979 4 SCC 176, held:

"2. It is high time that Governments and public authorities adopt the practice of not relying upon technical pleas for the purpose of defeating legitimate claims of citizens and do what is fair and just to the citizens. Of course, if a Government or a public authority takes up a technical plea, the Court has to decide it and if the plea is well founded, it has to be upheld by the Court, but what we feel is that such a plea should not ordinarily be taken up by a Government or a public authority, unless of course the claim is not well founded and by reason of delay in filing it, the evidence for the purpose of resisting such a claim has become unavailable."

5.3 In a three-Judge Bench judgment of Bhag Singh & Ors.v.Union Territory of Chandigarh through LAC, Chandigarh, 1985 3 SCC 737.

"3. The State Government must do what is fair and just to the citizen and should not, as far as possible, except in cases where tax or revenue is received or recovered without protest or where the State Government would otherwise be irretrievably be prejudiced, take up a technical plea to defeat the legitimate and just claim of the citizen."

Unwarranted litigation by Governments and statutory authorities basically stem from the two general baseless assumptions by their officers. They are:

(i) All claims against the Government/statutory authorities should be viewed as illegal and should be resisted and fought up to the highest Court of the land.

(ii) If taking a decision on an issued could be avoided, then it is prudent not to decide the issue and let the aggrieved party approach the Court and secure a decision.

The reluctance to take decisions, or tendency to challenge all orders against them, is not the policy of the Governments or statutory authorities, but is attributable to some officers who are responsible for taking decisions and/or officers-in-charge of litigation. Their reluctance arises from an instinctive tendency to protect themselves against any future accusations of wrong decision making, or worse, of improper motives for any decision-making. Unless their insecurity and fear is addressed, officers will continue to pass on the responsibility of decision making to Courts and Tribunals. The Central Government is now attempting to deal with this issue by formulating realistic and practical norms for defending cases filed against the Government and for filing appeals and revisions against adverse decisions, thereby, eliminating unnecessary litigation. But, it is not sufficient if the Central Government alone undertakes such an exercise. The State Governments and the statutory authorities, who have more litigations than the Central Government, should also make genuine efforts to eliminate unnecessary litigation. Vexatious and unnecessary litigation have been clogging the wheels of justice, for too long making it difficult for courts and Tribunals to provide easy and speedy access to justice to bonafide and needy litigants.

In this case, what is granted by the State Commission is the minimum relief in the facts and circumstances, that is to direct allotment of an alternative plot with a nominal compensation of Rs.5,000/- . But instead of remedying the wrong, by complying with the decision of the Consumer Fora, the Improvement Trust is trying to brazen out its illegal act by contending that the allottee should have protested when it illegally laid the road in his plot. It has persisted with its unreasonable and unjust stand by indulging in unnecessary litigation by approaching the National Commission and then this Court. The Trust should sensitize its officers to serve the public rather than justify their dictatorial acts. It should avoid such an unnecessary litigation."

[33] Now it is to be seen, as to what should be the quantum of damages which should be imposed upon the petitioner for dragging the respondent upto the highest fora under the Act, when petitioner had no case at all. It is not that every order passed by the judicial fora is to be challenged by the litigants, even if the same are based on sound reasonings.

[34] In Ravinder Kaur Vs. Ashok Kumar, 2004 AIR(SC) 904 the Apex Court observed; "Courts of law should be careful enough to see through such diabolical plans of the judgment debtor to deny the decree holders the fruits of the decree obtained by them. These type of errors on the part of the judicial forum only encourage frivolous and cantankerous litigations causing law''s delay and bringing bad name to the judicial system."

[35] Further, Apex Court in Ramrameshwari Devi and Ors. Vs. Nirmala Devi and Ors. (Civil Appeal Nos.4912-4913 of 2011 decided on July 4, 2011) has observed ; "45. We are clearly of the view that unless we ensure that wrong doers are denied profit or undue benefit from the frivolous litigation, it would be difficult to control frivolous and uncalled for litigations. In order to curb uncalled for and frivolous litigation, the Courts have to ensure that there is no incentive or motive for uncalled for litigation. It is a matter of common experience that court''s otherwise scarce and valuable time is consumed or more appropriately wasted in a large number of uncalled for cases".

The court further held;

Learned Amicus articulated common man''s general impression about litigation in following words;

"Make any false averment, conceal any fact, raise any plea, produce any false document, deny any genuine document, it will successfully stall the litigation, and in any case, delay the matter endlessly. The other party will be coerced into a settlement which will be profitable for me and the probability of the court ordering prosecution for perjury is less than that of meeting with an accident while crossing the road."

Lastly, the Court observed;

While imposing the costs we have to take into consideration pragmatic realities and be realistic what the defendants or the respondents had to actually incur in contesting the litigation before different courts. We have to also broadly take into consideration the prevalent fee structure of the lawyers and other miscellaneous expenses which have to be incurred towards drafting and filing of the counter affidavit, miscellaneous charges towards typing, photocopying, court fee etc.

The other factor which should not be forgotten while imposing costs is for how long the defendants or respondents were compelled to contest and defend the litigation in various courts. The appellant in the instant case have harassed the respondents to the hilt for four decades in a totally frivolous and dishonest litigation in various courts the appellants have also wasted judicial time of the various courts for the last 40 years.

On consideration of totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, we do not find any infirmity in the well-reasoned impugned order/ judgment. These appeals are consequently dismissed with costs, which we quantify as Rs.2,00,000/-. We are imposing the costs not out of anguish but by following the fundamental principle that wrongdoers should not get benefit out of frivolous litigation".

[36] Accordingly, we find no infirmity or ambiguity in the impugned order. Thus, present petition is nothing but gross abuse of process of law and same is required to be dismissed with punitive damages. Therefore, present revision petition stand dismissed with punitive damages of ?5,00,000/-(Rupees Five lakhs only) in all. Out of this amount, sum of ?1,00,000/-(Rupees One lac only) shall be paid, to the respondent.

[37] Petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of ?4,00,000/-(Rupees Four Lacs only) by way of demand draft in the name of ''Consumer Legal Aid Account'' of this Commission and balance amount of ?1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lac only) in name of the respondent, by way of demand draft with this Commission, within eight weeks from today.

[38] Meanwhile, Petitioner-Authority shall recover the punitive damages amount from the salaries of the delinquent officers, who have been pursuing this meritless and frivolous litigation, with the sole aim of wasting the public exchequer. Vice-Chairman of Petitioner Authority should file his own affidavit giving details of the officers from whose salaries the amount has been recovered, within eight weeks.

[39] Punitive damages awarded in favour of the respondent shall be paid to him only after expiry of period of appeal or revision preferred, if any.

[40] In case, petitioner fails to deposit the aforesaid amount within the prescribed period, then it shall also be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a. till realization.

[41] Pending applications stand disposed of.

[42] List for compliance on 18th September, 2015.