P.Nirmala Devi vs P.Venkateshwar Rao

THE complaint in this case was filed by respondent no.1 before the District Forum for directing the petitioner / opposite party no.1 and respondent no.2 / opposite party no.2 to register the plot in question or to pay the present market value @ 1500 per sq.yd. along with compensation of Rs.50,000/- and cost of Rs.2,500/-. Contending that there was no deficiency on her part and that she was always ready to perform her part of contract which the complainant himself had been postponing without performing his part of the contract, the opposite party no.1 resisted the complaint and prayed for its dismissal. Opposite party no.2 being Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority filed a counter stating that the layout owner did not develop the layout as per the BLP conditions and hence the complaint is not maintainable against VUDA (opposite party no.2).

ON appreciation of the evidence adduced before it, the District Forum held that selling of plots without obtaining LP itself amounts to deficiency of service. Therefore, the contention of the opposite party/petitioner herein that the complainant was not coming forward and, therefore, opposite party no.1 did not execute the sale deed was not tenable. It also came to the conclusion that opposite party no.1 had started the scheme with an intention to cheat the public by adopting unfair trade practice. In the circumstances, the District Forum held opposite no.1 guilty of deficiency of service and directed him to pay the present market value of 200 sq. yds. @ 1500/- within two months, failing which, he was directed to pay interest @ 12% p.a. on the market value of the plot from 11.9.2003 till date of realization. Opposite party no.1 was also directed to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant along with cost of Rs.1,000/-. The claim against opposite party no.2/respondent no.2 was dismissed. Opposite party no.1/petitioner herein challenged the order of the District Forum through an appeal before the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (?State Commission? for short). Since there was delay of 1033 days in filing the appeal, an application was filed by the petitioner before the State Commission for condonation of the delay. Not feeling convinced by the reasons given by the petitioner for condonation of delay of 1033 days in filing the appeal, the State Commission vide its impugned order dated 1.9.2006 dismissed the application of the petitioner for condonation of delay and consequently the appeal of the petitioner. This is how the petitioner has now come before the National Commission through the present revision petition against the impugned order of the State Commission.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Dismissing the application for condonation of delay, the State Commission has made the following observations in support of its decision:- "The reasons given by the petitioner in the affidavit is hardly any cause much less sufficient cause mention in the application for seeking to condone the inordinate delay of 1033 days. The parties seeking relief has to satisfy the court that he/she has sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the time prescribed and the explanation has to cover the entire period of delay. A litigant cannot be permitted to take away a right which as accrued to his adversary by lapse of time. Proof of sufficient cause is a condition precedent for the exercise of discretion of jurisdiction vested in this Court under Section 15(a) of the Consumer Protection Act. The discretion conferred on this court is a judicial discretion and is exercised to advance justice and even if there is a strong cause for acceptance of the appeal that would not be ground for condonation of delay. Hence, we see no convincing reasons forthcoming to condone this Inordinate delay of 1033 days in filing the appeal. The petition to condone the delay of 1033 days therefore fails and is accordingly dismissed."

WE agree with the view taken by the State Commission. On the merits also, the petitioner has no case since the District Forum has allowed the complaint vide its detailed and well-reasoned order based on finding of facts which are considered and discussed at length in the order of the District Forum and hence need not be reiterated. There are no legal issues involved in the matter which would justify our interference with the order of the District Forum on merits. WE, therefore, dismiss the revision petition and uphold the order dated 11.7.2003 of the District Forum as well as the impugned order dated 1.9.2006 of the State Commission. At this stage, it is brought to our notice by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has already paid an amount of Rs.75,000/- to the complainant/respondent no.1. If that be so, we hereby direct that the amount already paid by the petitioner to the complainant shall be suitably adjusted against the decretal amount.