JARNAIL SINGH & ANR. vs ADMINISTRATOR, CHANDIGARH

Vide allotment letter dated 15.3.1990, the petitioners were allotted a plot of land by Chandigarh Administration, for a premium of Rs.17,10,000/-. The complainants / petitioners paid a sum of Rs.1,83,600/- as interest, in addition to the principal amount of Rs.17,10,000/-. Alleging delay on the part of the respondent in providing amenities, they filed a consumer complaint in the year 2000, seeking compensation and re-fixation of the auction dates in accordance with the dates on which the amenities were provided to them. A compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- was granted to

them and the respondent was also directed to treat the date of providing the last basic amenity as the date of the auction. The aforesaid order passed by the District Forum was maintained upto this Commission. Vide order dated 20.12.2002, the aforesaid order was declared to be satisfied on payment of Rs.2,15,013/- to the complainants / petitioners. The aforesaid amount was received by the petitioners/complainants without any protest.

The petitioners / complainants filed another execution application being Execution Application No.46 of 2013, seeking execution of the order of the State Commission dated 18.3.2002, which this Commission had upheld. In the execution, they sought payment of Rs.28,77,425/-, along with compensation and litigation cost etc. The amount claimed by them as compensation alone was more than twice the amount paid by them for the plot. The second execution application however, was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 03.12.2013, with liberty to the petitioners / complainants to resort to any other remedy available to them in law.

The petitioners/complainants filed a fresh consumer complaint, seeking payment of Rs.6,96,100/- along with interest and compensation on the ground that the respondent had failed to comply with the order dated 18.3.2002 passed by the State Commission. It was also alleged in the complaint that since the last amenity was provided in the year 2002, the lease rent was payable from 2003 only but the complainants had been making payment of lease rent since 1991and therefore, lease rent paid for the years 1991 to 2002 was liable to be refunded to them. In para 17 of the complaint, it was alleged that the cause of action accrued to the complainants from 18.3.2002 when the order was passed by the State Commission. It was further alleged that the cause of action again arose when the order of the State Commission was approved by this Commission on 23.8.2010 and it also arose when a copy of the order of the National Commission was supplied to the respondents.

The District Forum vide its order dated 03.12.2015, dismissed the fresh complaint filed by the petitioner. Being aggrieved the petitioners approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 20.01.2016, the State Commission dismissed the appeal filed by them. Being still dissatisfied, they are again before this Commission by way of this revision petition.

The case of the petitioners / complainants is that since there was delay in providing amenities to them, they were not liable to pay any ground rent till the year 2002 when the last amenity was provided to them. Admittedly, the delay in providing the amenities was also the cause of action pleaded by the petitioners / complainants in the first complaint, whereby they had sought re-fixing of the date of auction in addition to monetary compensation. Therefore, no fresh cause of action arose to the petitioner s/ complainants to file a new complaint in the year 2014, based upon the same cause of action. If the petitioners/ complainants wanted refund of the ground rent which they claimed to have paid right since the year 1991, this prayer ought to have been made by them in the first complaint itself. A fresh complaint, founded on the same cause of action therefore, clearly is not maintainable.

As noted earlier, this is petitioners'' own case that the cause of action to file the new complaint arose to them in the year 2002 when the order dated 18.3.2002 came to be passed by the State Commission, though, in our opinion, the alleged cause of action arose as and when the lease rent was paid to the respondents. Even if we take 18.3.2002 as the date on which the cause of action arose to the petitioners / complainants, the complaint filed in March, 2014 was clearly barred by limitation.

Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, prescribes a limitation of two years from the date of accrual of the cause of action, to file a consumer complaint. The following view taken by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in SBI vs. B.S. Agriculture Industries (I), (2009) 5 SCC 121 is pertinent in this regard:- "It would be seen from the aforesaid provision that it is peremptory in nature and requires consumer forum to see before it admits the complaint that it has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action. The consumer forum, however, for the reasons to be recorded in writing may condone the delay in filing the complaint if sufficient cause is shown. The expression, "shall not admit a complaint" occurring in Section 24-A is sort of a legislative command to the consumer forum to examine on its own5 whether the complaint has been filed within limitation period prescribed thereunder. 12. As a matter of law, the consumer forum must deal with the complaint on merits only if the complaint has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action and if beyond the said period, the sufficient cause has been shown and delay condoned for the reasons recorded in writing. In other words, it is the duty of the consumer forum to take notice of Section 24-A and give effect to it. If the complaint is barred by time and yet, the consumer forum decides the complaint on merits, the forum would be committing an illegality and, therefore, the aggrieved party would be entitled to have such order set aside."

For the reasons stated hereinabove, we find no ground to interfere with the orders, dismissing the complaint The revision petition is therefore dismissed with no order as to costs.