Haryana Urban Development Authority Through its Estate Officer vs Ramesh Chander Kapoor

THIS revision petition is against the order dated 03.03.2010 of the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, ?the State Commission?) in F.A. No. 1458 of 2005.

THAT facts of the case as well as the findings of the State Commission are succinctly discussed in the impugned order and hence reproduced below: "The brief facts of the present case are that Smt. Vidyawanti, mother of the complainant was allotted plot No.1618, Sector 55, Faridabad vide allotment letter dated 1.8.1986. However, the possession of the plot was not delivered by the opposite parties because a high-tension wire was passing over the plot and also that there was a sewerage pipeline passing through the plot. An alternative plot No.1650 was allotted to the mother of the complainant vide letter dated 29.4.94. The mother of the complainant expired on 19.8.1989 and thereafter the plot in question was transferred in the name of Sh. Parma Nand Kapoor-father of the complainant. After the death of Parma Nand Kapoor on 22.2.2002, the plot was transferred in the name of complainant. Thereafter, the opposite parties demanded extension fee of Rs.59,069/- which was up to the year 2002 and the complainant took possession of the plot on 26.07.2002. The opposite parties thereafter issued a notice dated 5.8.2002 demanding Rs.16,850/- as additional cost of the above said demand which was accepted by Administrator HUDA, wherein complainant was ordered to deposit Rs.3904/- and the same was deposited by the complainant on 5.3.2002. Again the opposite parties issued a notice dated 4.2.2003 to deposit extension fee of Rs.5274/- up to 2003. Challenging the action of the opposite parties the complainant invoked the jurisdiction of the District Forum. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and resisted the claim of the complainant and justified the demand made from the complainant on the ground that high-tension wire and sewerage line was removed on 10.5.2002 and the plot in question was transferred in the name of complainant on 25.7.2002. Thus, denying any kind of deficiency in service it was prayed that complaint be dismissed. Both the parties led evidence in support of their respective claims. On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced on record, the District Forum accepted the complaint and granted relief as mentioned above. Aggrieved against the order of the District Forum appellant-opposite party has come up in appeal. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not see any infirmity in the impugned order. It is established on record that the high-tension electricity wire and sewerage line passing through the plot were removed on 10.5.2002. The plot in question was transferred in the name of the complainant on 25.7.2002. Thus, the impugned demand made by the opposite parties for the period before the removal of high tension wire and sewerage line, was not justifiable because the complainant could not raise construction over the plot due to non-existence of the plot in proper manner. Thus, the District Consumer Forum has rightly accepted the complaint."

I have heard Mr. R.S. Badhran, learned counsel for the petitioner at the stage of considering admission of the petition.

It may be noted that at the outset, the revision petition filed after a delay of 258 days. In the application seeking condonation of delay, the following grounds have been cited: "1. That the applicant/appellant is filing the application for stay along with the revision against the order dated 3.3.2010 passed by the Hon?ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula and order dated 28.10.2005 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Faridabad. The contents of the ground of revision be read as part and parcel of application for stay. The accompanying revision petition is most likely to be succeeded (sic) on grounds mentioned therein. 2. That a prima facie case is made out in favour of the applicant and against the respondent. Balance of convenience lies in favour of the applicant and applicant shall suffer irreparable loss if ad interim injunction is not granted and operation of the impugned order is not stayed during the pendency of the case."

CONSIDERING the complete absence of any reason, leave alone ?sufficient cause?, being given by the petitioner in seeking condonation of such inordinate delay, Mr. Badhran was asked if the petitioner would like to withdraw this revision petition, keeping in view the additional fact that both the Fora below had arrived at concurrent findings on the question of deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner in levying unjustifiable demands on the respondent/complainant. However, Mr. Badhran insisted that the case involves ?matter of principle? and hence, the petitioner was not willing to withdraw the petition. Even after careful consideration of the facts and the pleadings of the opposite party before the District Forum, it is not possible to decipher any jurisdictional or legal error or material irregularity in the impugned order that could warrant intervention of this Commission under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereafter, ?the Act?). In fact, the facts cited above clearly show that the officials of the petitioner indeed acted highhandedly and illegally in levying unjustifiable fee for the alleged delay in construction when even the possession of the plot could not be delivered to the complainant because of high-tension electrical cables passing over the plot and a sewerage pipeline also passing through it. In such a situation, the proper course of action for the petitioner would have been to gracefully accept the order of the District Forum. In the given facts and circumstances, even if the petitioner could exercise its right to appeal against the order of the District Forum, there is no reason, in my view, to indulge in a further misadventure and challenge the well-reasoned order of the State Commission by way of this revision petition. The revision petition is, thus, vexatious and frivolous. It is not realised by public bodies like the petitioner that while they can with impunity waste public funds by engaging in such litigations, the net result is the delay that such cases cause in meeting the just demands of the consumers and that in disposal of genuine grievances/cases before the Consumer Fora. The collective costs of such litigations to the society as a whole is enormous and steps need to be taken to curb such practices and discourage the underlying mindset in public bodies.

IN view of the foregoing discussion, the application for condonation of delay of 258 days is summarily dismissed. The revision petition is consequently also dismissed, with cost of Rs. 10,000/- to be deposited by the petitioner within four weeks with the Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission. List on 30.07.2012 for reporting compliance.