Megacity (Bangalore) Developers And Builders Pvt. Ltd. vs Rita Adyanthaya

PETITIONER /Opposite Party being aggrieved by common order dated 29.6.2010, passed (in Appeals No. 2035,2036,2037 and 2038 of 2010) by Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Banagalore (for short, ''State Commission) has filed above noted petitions. Alongwith these petitions, applications for condonation of delay of 360/390 days have also been filed.

RESPONDENTS /complainants applied for allotment of residential sites in "Vagragiri Township ", Bangalore. They paid money for that purpose to the Petitioner. However, Petitioner did not allot the sites nor registered the sale deed in their favour. The reason given by petitioner for not allotting the sites is that due to the legal hurdles in respect of the land in which the layout to be formed, the petitioner is unable to allot the sites. Respondents, therefore filed complaints before the Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bangalore (for short, ''District Forum '').

DISTRICT Forum, vide its common order dated 23.04.2010, allowed the complaints and directed Petitioner ''s Company to refund the total amount deposited by the respondents alongwith compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- each, with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of the order. It further awarded Rs.5,000/- as costs to each of the respondents.

AGGRIEVED by the order of District Forum, Petitioner filed appeals before the State Commission which dismissed the same at admission stage itself, vide its impugned order. Hence, these petitions.

WE have heard arguments on the applications for condonation of delay, advanced by learned counsel for the parties.

GROUNDS for condonation of delay read as under ; "4. That aggrieved by the order dated 29.6.2010 the Petitioner Company filed Writ Petition No. 33978 of 2010 before the High Court on 26.10.2010. 5. That vide its order dated 30.4.2011 the Hon ''ble Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore was pleased to dismiss the writ petition filed by the Petitioner as withdrawn with liberty to avail of alternative remedy under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 6. The certified copy of the order dated 30.5.2011 was notified as ready on 6.6.2010. 7. That the Petitioner herein received the copy of 6.6.2011. 8. That on 22.6.2011 the petitioner requested their counsel before the State Commission to return the documents and file pertaining to the instant case. 9. That on 15.7.2011 the Petitioner herein received the file and copy of the appeal from their counsel before the Hon ''ble State Commission. 10. That on 28.7.2011 the Petitioner sent the relevant documents to the present counsel opinion as to whether the case was a fit case to file revision. 11. That on 09.8.2011 the counsel for the Petitioner opined that the present case was a fit case to file revision. 12. That on 15.8.2011, the Petitioner directed their counsel to file the present revision petition. 13. That on 29.8.2011 the Petitioner sent the relevant documents pertaining to the case to the present counsel. 14. That the Petitioner ''s counsels took 10 days to draft the petition. 15. That further time of 2 weeks were taken in translation. 16. That the present Revision Petition was filed on .09.2011 ".

The gist of the grounds cited in applications for delay is that, petitioner earlier challenged the order of State Commission by way of writ petition before Karnataka High Court. By its order dated 30.5.2011, the High Court dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner, so as avail of alternative remedy.

IN this context, it would be pertinent to refer to a decision of Hon ''ble Supreme Court in "M/s Advance Scientific Equipment Ltd. & Anr. Vs. West Bengal Pharma & Photochemical Development Corporation Ltd. (Appeal (Civil) Nos. 17068-17069/2010, decided on 9 July 2010),in which it has observed interalia as under; " ... ...We are further of the view that the petitioners '' venture of filing petition under Article 227 of the Constitution was clearly an abuse of the process of the Court and the High Court ought not to have entertained the petition even for a single day because an effective alternative remedy was available to the petitioner under Section 23 of the Act and the orders passed by the State Commission did not suffer from lack of jurisdiction ".

MOREOVER , Hon ''ble Supreme Court in "Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ (SC)observed; " Itis also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if this Court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the Consumer Foras ".

Decision of AnshulAggarwal (supra) has been reiterated in CicilyKallarackal Vs. Vehicle Factory, IV (2012) CPJ 1(SC) 1, wherein Hon ''ble Supreme Court observed; "4 This Court in Anshulal Aggarwal v. NOIDA, (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) has explained the scope of condonation of delay in a matter where the special Courts/Tribunals have been constituted in order to provide expeditious remedies to the person aggrieved and Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is one of them. Therefore, this Court held that while dealing with the application for condonation of delay in such cases the Court must keep in mind the special period of limitation prescribed under the statute (s). 5. In the instant case, condoning such an inordinate delay without any sufficient cause would amount to substituting the period of limitation by this Court in place of the period prescribed by the Legislature for filing the special leave petition. Therefore, we do not see any cogent reason to condone the delay. 6. Hence, in the facts and circumstance of the case as explained hereinabove, we are not inclined to entertain these petitions. The same are dismissed on the ground of delay ".

HENCE , in view of the decision of M/s Advance Scientific Equipment Ltd. (supra) High Court ought not to have entertained the writ petition, since petitioner had an effective alternate remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Under these Circumstances, act of petitioner in approaching a wrong forum, will not entitle him to have the delay condoned.

ACCORDINGLY , we find no just and sufficient cause to condone the long delay of 360/390 days in filing of the present petitions. Applications for condonation of delay without any merit as well having no legal basis are not maintainable. Consequently, the present revision petitions being hopelessly barred by limitation, are dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand Only) each, to be paid to the respective respondent. Petitioner is directed to deposit the aforesaid cost by way of demand draft in the name of respective respondent, within a period of four weeks from today. In case, petitioner fails to deposit the cost within the specified period, then it shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a., till realization. Cost shall be paid to the respondents only after expiry of period of appeal/revision, preferred if any.

LIST for compliance on 26.4.2013.