HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs NIRMALA DEVI

PETITIONER was the opposite party before the District Forum, where the respondent/complainant had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner.

BASIC facts are not in dispute, that the complainant was allotted a plot for which certain amount was deposited, the possession of the plot could not be given to the complainant, in the light of which an alternative plot was allotted for which a revised price was demanded which the complainant was not willing to pay. It is in these circumstances that a complaint was filed before the District Forum, who allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to charge the same rate from the complainant of alternative plot at which the original plot was allotted, as also that any excess amount already paid by the complainant, was required to be adjusted. The petitioner was also directed to pay interest @18% p.a. on the deposited amount from the date of deposit till the date of possession. Aggrieved by this order an appeal was filed before the State Commission. Despite giving repeated opportunities spread over a period of almost three years, the petitioner did not comply with the second proviso of Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act in view of which as per provisions of law, the appeal was dismissed as not entertainable. Aggrieved by this order this revision petition has been filed before us with a delay of 443 days. An application for condonation of delay has also been filed in which following grounds for condonation of delay have been taken: "4. That after receiving of the copy of the impugned order dated 17.4.2006 the matter required to be dealt with at various department of the petitioner authority namely from the concerned Enstate Officer to legal branch ADA/DDA to the Head of the Department namely Administrator/Chief Administrator, then to branch incharge. then to the Assistant (Legal Branch) and again back via the same cumbersome lengthy procedure and marked to the Counsel and then again sent to the Legal Department by the Counsel as the appeal has to be vetted from the Legal Department. That the procedure as mentioned above for which the delay occurred was beyond control because of bureaucratic hierarchical setup, which was neither deliberate nor intentional and the petitioner sincerely regret for the delay in filing revision petition.

Because alternative plot was offered to the allottee of the plot including all terms and conditions and price was accepted by the allottee and, thereafter, only the exchange, latter was issued. So as the price of alternate plot was accepted by the allottee, now the complainant is bound to make the payment of additional price of plot in the time as per the condition of the allotment letter.

WE heard the learned Counsel at some length and are pained to see the repeat of history of similar cases filed before us in which repeatedly, proviso of Section 15 of the CPA is not complied with by the petitioner while filing the appeal and then revision petition(s) have been filed before us after considerable delay. We have seen the grounds taken for condonation of delay and are unable to satisfy us that sufficient explanation has been given to condone the delay. It is not a delay of few days/few weeks, it is delay of almost over an year, in view of which we are unable to condone the delay as not been sufficiently explained, hence the application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Even on merits, we see, what has been directed by the District Forum, i.e., to charge the price of the original plot for the alternative plot allotted by the petitioner.

IN view of above, we see no merit in this revision petition, hence the revision petition is dismissed both by barred by limitation and merits also. We like to make a remark here with regard to the repeated history of delayed filing of petitions as also not observing the second proviso of Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 resulting in poor showing on the part of the Statutory Authority like HUDA. In these circumstances we like to direct the Registry to send a copy of this order to the Chief Administrator, HUDA, Chandigarh with the direction that he may like to hold an internal inquiry as to why history of such cases are being repeated to the detriment of HUDA. R.P. dismissed.