P.U.D.A. vs JASWINDER SINGH

THIS order will govern the disposal of Revision Petition Nos. 532 to 574/2004 which arise out of a common order dated 9.12.2003 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Union Territory, Chandigarh.

BY the order dated 3.6.2003 batch of 45 complaints was decided by the District Forum with direction to the petitioner/opposite party Authority to charge the advertised price of the flat (s) of Rs. 6,30,000 and pay interest @ 12% per annum on the deposited amount(s) for a period of one year and four months. Respondents herein were also the complainants in above batch of complaints. Facts of one of the complaints bearing No. 491/2002, Ajay Walia v. PUDA and another which are referred to in District Forum''s order, were these : Petitioner-Authority floated a scheme for allotment of 784 flats of MIG, Super Category in Sector 70, Mohali on hire purchase basis. As per brochure issued by petitioner, the allocation of flats was to be made within 90 days from the date of closure of scheme on 14.9.1995. Mr. Walia who had applied for allotment of a flat under the scheme, was successful in draw of lots and allotted a flat vide allotment No. 6172 dated 10.8.1998. In the brochure, tentative cost of flat was shown as Rs. 6,30,000. However, in allotment letter the price of flat was indicated as Rs. 7,67,000. Mr. Walia took possession of the flat reserving right to challenge the enhancement in price and delay in handling over possession thereof. It was further alleged that in C.W.P. No. 17627 of 1997 by the order dated 28.12.1999 the Punjab and Haryana High Court directed the Authority to make available the details of the factors which contributed to increase in price of allotted flats to the petitioners therein and to consider the representations of the petitioners, if made, within two months if the petitioners felt aggrieved by the decision taken on representations they were free to avail of appropriate legal remedy. Decision made on the representations was communicated to the petitioners, vide letter No. 9552 dated 27.4.2000 which revealed that Authority had enhanced the price of land from Rs. 1,200 to Rs. 2,700 per sq. yard after the date by which possession of flats was to be given. In said complaint No. 491/2002 direction was sought to the Authority to refund the excess amount realised, etc. Complaint was contested by filing written version by the petitioner-Authority, amongst others, on the ground that issue of pricing of flats cannot be gone into by the Forum and complaint filed in 2002 was barred by time as possession of allotted flat had been taken by Mr. Walia some time in the year 1998. Remaining complaints were filed seeking similar relief and were contested by the petitioner-Authority on identical pleas. Against aforesaid order of District Forum dated 3.6.2003 both the parties filed appeals. Against aforesaid order of District Forum dated 3.6.2003 both the parties filed appeals. Appeals of respondents were dismissed while appeals filed by petitioner-Authority were partly allowed setting aside part of the order in regard to payment of interest.

One of the submissions advanced by Mr. A.R. Takkar for petitioner-Authority was that delay in filing complaints by the respondents was erroneously condoned by the District Forum and plea of complaints as being barred by limitation though taken in appeals by the Authority was not considered by the State Commission. It was pointed out that none of the respondents except R.P. Kambhoj, respondent in R.P. No. 571/2004 was a party to CWP No. 17627 of 1997; that complaint filed by Smt. Shabnam Virk before the District Forum in the year 1999 was within limitation period as she had been allotted flat sometime in the year 1998. On the other hand, while supporting the order of District Forum, the contention advanced by Mr. S.S. Virk for respondents was that the limitation would start running from 27.4.2000 when petitioner-Authority communicated the reasons for escalation in price of flats pursuant to the order of High Court dated 20.12.1999 and not from the date (s) of hading over of possession of flats to the respondents. Relevant portion of the order dated 3.6.2003 of District Forum is reproduced below: "In this case opposite parties have raised the preliminary objection with regard to the complaint being barred by limitation. The learned Counsel for opposite party stated that cause of action accrued to the complainants from the respective dates when they had taken the possession of their respective flats. It is stated on behalf of the complainant that the residents'' association of that locality had preferred a Civil Writ Petition No. 17626/97 in the Hon''ble Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh which was decided on 20.12.1999 directing PUDA to explain the mode of enhancement of the price of flats to the Association of the allottees. In compliance with the directions of the High Court, opposite parties have stated on 27.4.2000 the reasons for enhancement, so it has been stated that cause of action accrued to the complainant on 27.4.2000, the date on which PUDA stated the reasons for escalation in price in compliance with the High Court order. The learned Counsel for complainant further submitted that their case is similar to Smt. Shabnam Virk''s case so under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, they have a right to be placed at par with her, at least in the matter of filing their complaints. As Ms. Shabnam Virk''s case is to be finally disposed of by the Apex Court which it is now pending and ultimate decision is to be followed in all the cases of Sector 70 MIG Super Category. So to avoid the parties from avoidable litigation and resulting harassment, the cases are held to be within limitation and delay, if there is any, is condoned in the interest of justice at the verbal request of the learned Counsel for complainant."

COPY of CWP No. 17627 of 1997 would show that none of the respondents barring R.P. Kambhoj respondent in R.P. No. 571/2004 was a party there. Only a party to that writ petition can take advantage of aforesaid communication dated 27.4.2000 as regards limitation. Further, issue of limitation pertaining to aforesaid MIG, Super Category Scheme in Sector 70, Mohali was considered in another batch of revision petitions by this Commission in Punjab Urban Development Authority v. Gurjinder Singh, IV (2004) CPJ 56 (NC)=2005 CTJ 158 and after referring to Section 24A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, it was held: "It may be seen that Sub-section (1) puts a complete bar on admitting a complaint if it is filed beyond two years of the date of accrual of cause of action. Under Sub-section (2), in the discretion of District Forum/State Commission/National Commission, as the case may be, the delay beyond two years may be condoned if the complainant is able to satisfy that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within the period of two years. Proviso to Sub-section (2) pre-supposes the disclosure of cause (for not filing complaint within two years period), the sufficiency whereof is to be examined while recording reason for condoning/not condoning the delay in question. Obviously, disclosure of cause has to be made in the application to be filed with the complaint. It is not in dispute that all the complaints were filed beyond the period of two years of the accrual of cause of action and in none of them except Complaint Case No. 537 of 2002 instituted by Iqbal Singh application(s) under Section 24A seeking condonation of delay in question had been filed. The District Forum could not have legally condoned the delays on oral prayer made during the course of arguments. It may be noticed that a suit filed in a Civil Court after the period of limitation prescribed under the Limitation Act, 1963 has to be dismissed as there is no provision for condoning delay on ground of any sufficient cause being shown for not filing it within the period of limitation. Aforesaid Sub-section (2) is a departure to the general law of limitation and condoning of delay in filing a complaint has, thus, to be taken seriously. Reason for condoning delay in filing complaints as recorded by the District Forum in said two orders was totally insufficient."

Slp filed against the said decision was dismissed after notice by the Supreme Court.

CAUSE of action to file complaints in these cases except in R.P. Kambhoj''s case accrued in the year 1998 when possession of flats had given. Complaints were filed some time in the year 2002 without there being application(s) under Section 24A of the C.P. Act, 1986. Considering the legal position as noticed in Gurjinder Singh''s case (supra) the District Forum must be held to have erroneously condoned the delay in filing complaints on oral requests. To be only noted that the State Commission did not examine the correctness of District Forum''s order on that count despite plea being taken in Memo of Appeals filed by the petitioner-Authority. Revision petitions, thus, deserve to be allowed except in Petition No. 571/2004. For the foregoing discussion, aforementioned revision petitions except No. 571/2004 are allowed and orders passed by Fora below set aside and complaints dismissed as being barred by time. No order as to cost. Revision Petitions allowed.