PASUPULETI RAVI TEJA vs KATURI VANA LAKSHMI

The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 30.06.2015 of the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (''the State Commission'') in First Appeal no. 284 of 2015.

The facts of the case as per the respondent/ complainant are that the respondent had joined the scheme of allotment of house plots introduced by the petitioner for purchase of a house site of 200 sq yards in Kanuru Village. Pass book bearing no. 188 was issued to the respondent by the petitioner as (exhibit A 1). Respondent paid Rs.52,000/- in instalments from 01.03.1995 to 10.08.1998. The petitioner executed a sale agreement in favour of the complainant on 08.07.1995 stating that he received the amount of Rs.16,000/- and the respondent had to pay the remaining balance in instalments in due time and the petitioner would register the plot no. 2 in S No. 102, 104 and 106 at Kanuru Grampanchayat, Krishna District. The respondent paid the entire cost of the plot and also paid an amount of Rs.3450/- towards the registration charges. The petitioner received the total amount of Rs.55,450/- by 10.08.1998. The petitioner did not come forward to hand over the house site and postponed to discharge his liability and thereby violated the terms of

the agreement. The respondent issued a legal notice through her advocate on 25.01.1999 to the petitioner. The petitioner received the said legal notice and issued a reply notice on 13.02.1999. She then filed a criminal case in CC no. 611 of 2006, in the Hon''ble I Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Vijayawada.

The respondent has prayed that the forum direct the petitioner to allot, execute and to register the house site of 200 sq yards in S no. 102, 104 and 106 plot no. 2 in Parvathaneni Nagar Kanuru Village of Penamaluru Mandalam Krishna District and also pay a compensation of Rs.40,000/- for mental agony.

The petitioner in his reply stated that the respondent was a defaulter and as such was not entitled to any relief for deficiency in service. The complaint is hopelessly time barred as the last payment was made on 10.08.1998 and the complaint was filed during June 2007 that was after a lapse of 80 months from the date of last payment. The petitioner received the legal notice of the respondent dated 25.01.1999 and issued reply notice on 13.02.1999 and thereafter no complaint was lodged by the respondent for seven years. The respondent was not entitled to the amount claimed and there was no stipulation of payment of interest. The documents filed by the respondent are inadmissible and irrelevant for the purpose of this complaint. Hence, the complaint may be dismissed.

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum - II, Vijayawada Krishna District (''the District Forum'') vide its order dated 28.09.2010 while allowing the complaint gave the following order: " In the result, the complaint is allowed partly. Opposite party is directed to allot, execute and to register the house site of 200 sq yards in S No. 102, 104, 106 plot no. 2 in Parvathaneni Nagar, Kanuru Village of Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna District or if it is not possible, at the complainant''s discretion to register the alternate plot of 200 sq yards in the same village or to pay the value of the plot which will be valued by the Registrar at the time of realisation to the complainant and do pay Rs.5000/- as costs. The complainant is directed to bear the registration charges if the opposite party register the plot".

Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the petitioner/ opposite party filed an appeal before the State Commission with a delay of 1593 days. The State Commission while dismissing the appeal observed as under: "The petitioner is seeking condonation of delay on the plea that after the disposal of the appeal, the petitioner settled the matter with the respondent and paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- with an understanding to pay the entire sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards the final settlement. According, to the petitioner, as per the settlement the respondent did not pursue the penalty proceedings, P P No. 4/ 2011 and allowed the same to be dismissed for default. However, the respondent in breach of agreement initiated fresh penalty proceedings P P No. 71/ 2011 by abusing the process of courts. The petitioner has therefore stated that due to the settlement, he was under the impression that the respondent would not pursue the matter. He accordingly prays that the delay be condoned.

The respondent herein has filed a counter affidavit and denied the aforesaid facts. It was stated that the penalty proceedings P P No. 4/ 2011 was initially filed on 01.03.2011 and it was not dismissed but closed on 28.07.2011 for the present for failing to take steps for

service of notice on the petitioner. He, therefore, filed fresh penalty proceedings PP No. 71 of 2011 on 20.08.2011. The petitioner herein is contesting the same by engaging a counsel. The respondent has denied the alleged agreement and the payment alleged to have been paid under the said agreement. The respondent would, therefore, state that the petitioner has come up with incorrect facts and the same does not constitute sufficient cause to condone the delay.

"This Commission has considered the aforesaid contentions with reference to the material placed on record. Admittedly, the impugned order was passed on 28.09.2010 and the appeal has been filed with an enormous delay of 1593 days. The contention of the petitioner is that he could not file the appeal in time because of the settlement of the dispute with the respondent and in pursuance of the same he paid Rs.50,000/- to the respondent. The said settlement is denied by the respondent. To prove the settlement, the petitioner ought to have filed some material before this Commission but no material is placed before this Commission in this regard. The petitioner is a business man engaged in real estate business. If really, there was an agreement, he would not have failed to reduce the same in writing and if he had really paid the amount, he would not have failed to obtain receipt. Therefore, it is not possible to accept the contention that there was a settlement on account of which the matter was not pursued. The closure of the earlier penalty proceedings PP No. 4 of 2011 is not relevant for the present case. Admittedly, the second penalty proceedings PP No. 71 of 2011 were initiated against him on 20.08.2011. He is contesting the matter by engaging an advocate since 2011. At least from that date onwards he was very much aware that the respondent was seeking implementation of the impugned order. After initiation of these Penalty Proceedings, there is absolutely no scope for him to harbour under the impression that the respondent would not pursue the matter against him.

No other reason has been urged for condoning the enormous delay of 1593 days. In the circumstances, this Commission is of the opinion that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause for condoning the delay. The discretionary jurisdiction cannot be exercised in his favour. The petitioner is accordingly dismissed".

Hence, the present revision petition.

We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the impugned order should be set aside because the Fora below had failed to appreciate the fact that the complaint is barred by limitation and the complainant purchased the plot on instalments and paid last payment on 10.08.1998 and the complaint was filed on 29.06.2007 after a lapse of nine years and hence, the complaint deserves to be dismissed on limitation.

We have gone through the record. In the affidavit filed with the appeal the only reason for the delay of 1593 days has been given as under: " After disposal of the appeal, the complainant had approached me for settlement and taken an amount of Rs.50,000/- and agreed for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to settle the dispute. I submit that after receiving the said amount, the respondent has allowed the PP

no. 4 of 2011 to dismiss for default. The said fact is on record which clearly shows that the matter has been settled out of the court. But, unfortunately by abusing the process of courts, the complainant has filed the second PP No. 71 of 2011 on 20.08.2011, which is nothing but gross abuse of process of courts. Now in the second PP warrant has been issued against me which is pending ".

As correctly observed by the State Commission nothing has been brought on record with reference to the so call settlement of dispute with the respondent to establish that there was an agreement and so the matter was not pursued for 1593 days.

The Hon''ble Supreme Court in Mrs Rubi (Chandra) Dutta vs M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 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 than 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 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 findings of two fora."

Thus, we find that no jurisdictional or legal error has been shown to us in the impugned order to call for our interference under Section 21 (b) of Act. The order of the State Commission does not call for any interference nor does it suffer from any infirmity or erroneous exercise of jurisdiction or material irregularity. Thus, the present revision petition is hereby, dismissed