Rita Mehra vs STATE OF PUNJAB

THE Appellant No.1 -Smt. Rita Mehra applied to Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority (in short ''PUDA ''), predecessor in interest of the respondent Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (in short ''GMADA '') for allotment of a residential plot, vide application dated 25.08.1969 and deposited earnest money amounting to Rs.975/ -. She was registered vide registration No.R -2889/500. Pursuant to a scheme of PUDA, vide application dated 22.6.1994 she applied for transfer of the said registration in favour of appellant No.2, Smt. Kuljit Kaur and also deposited a sum of Rs.500/ - as transfer fee. Two bank drafts, one dated 17.6.1994 for Rs.50,000/ - and other dated 21.06.1994 for Rs.9,500/ - were also enclosed to the said application towards enhanced earnest money.

PUDA received yet another application, seeking transfer of the aforesaid registration from appellant No.1 -Smt. Rita Mehra to one Smt. Mohinder Kaur. The case of the appellants is that the aforesaid application was not a genuine application and the signatures of appellant No.1 were forged on it. Acting on the aforesaid application, the registration was transferred by PUDA in the name of Smt. Mohinder Kaur.

VIDE public notice dated 25.07.1995, PUDA decided to hold a draw of lots on 01.8.1995 for allotment of vacant residential plots. It was clarified in the public notice that only those old applicants would be included in the draw of lots, who had completed 10% earnest money by 29.07.1994 and the remaining applicants, including those whose applications were under transfer from one name to another name, would be considered in the next draw of lots. It was also stated in the said notice that adequate number of plots had been kept reserved for eligible applicants. The draw of lots was accordingly held on 01.8.1995, but neither name of appellant No.1 -Smt. Rita Mehra and nor that of appellant No.2 -Smt. Kuljit Kaur was included in the draw. Smt. Mohinder Kaur filed a civil suit against PUDA, alleging therein that one property dealer, in connivance with two employees of PUDA, had received a sum of Rs.73,000/ - from her and informed her that a registration number had been allotted to her. She was then asked to deposit a sum of Rs.59,025/ - in the name of PUDA, which she deposited by way of a bank draft. In the civil suit, she sought to recover the aforesaid amount, along with interest thereon. Thus, in the aforesaid civil suit she clearly admitted that Smt. Rita Mehra had not transferred the registration in her favour and it were the officials of the PUDA, who in connivance with a property dealer had got the said registration transferred in her favour. Written Statement in the aforesaid civil suit was filed by the PUDA on 14.11.1998. It was stated in the written statement that Smt. Mohinder Kaur had been informed, vide letter dated 22.6.1994 that registration No. 2889 had been transferred in her name. Deposit of Rs.59,025/ - by her was admitted, but it was stated that the draft deposited by her was not encashed on account of pendency of criminal case. Deposit of Rs.50,000/ - by Smt. Rita Mehra by way of bank draft dated 17.6.1994 and deposit of Rs.9,500/ - by way of bank draft dated 21.6.1994 was also admitted. It was however, claimed that aforesaid drafts were also not encashed.

THE appellant No.1 came to know that another draw of lots was scheduled to be held on 07.6.2000. She sent a legal notice to the respondent, requesting it to include her name in the said draw. However, her name was not included in the draw held on 07.6.2000. The transfer of registration in favour of Smt. Mohinder Kaur came to be cancelled on 10.7.2000.

DESPITE having cancelled the transfer of registration in her favour, the respondent vide letter dated 02.3.2001, sought option from her to include her name in a draw of lots to be held in near future. The appellant No.2 -Kuljit Kaur also made a representation to the respondent on 11.4.2002, claiming to be her attorney and seeking necessary action in the matter. She claims to have made representations to the higher -ups on 16.1.2004 and 19.12.2006. Ultimately she filed a complaint before the concerned State Commission, seeking allotment of a plot @ Rs.1400/ - per sq. yard as well as compensation from the respondent.

THE complaint was resisted by the respondent, inter -alia on the grounds that after filing the application dated 25.08.1969, the appellant No.1 slept over the matter till 22.6.1994 and did not seek any allotment during the aforesaid period. It was claimed that by way of a letter dated 25.12.1974, she was asked to deposit a sum of Rs.28,025/ -, which she never deposited. It was also claimed that even thereafter, a number of advertisements were given in the newspapers, calling upon the old applicants to deposit the earnest money but she did not respond to the said notices. It was further claimed that responding to the letter of the respondent dated 22.5.1976; she had stated that she was not interested in the plot as PUDA had increased the prices. She requested that necessary papers, to get the money back, be sent to her. The State Commission felt that she did submit the papers in this regard as would be evident from the letter of the PUDA dated 08.9.1976, informing her that the forms sent by her were not complete and requiring her to send the forms again. Based on this, the State Commission was of the view that she was not interested in allotment of the plot. It was also claimed by the respondent that they also sent yet another letter dated 02.4.1987 to Smt. Rita Mehra, informing her about the availability of the plots at the rates mentioned in the letters, but she did not respond to the said letter. The aforesaid letter was followed by yet another letter dated 10.9.1993, requiring her to deposit the earnest money by 20.9.1993, but she failed to respond to the said letter. According to the respondent, they had also sent a subsequent letter dated 31.5.1994 to her, informing her of a draw of lots scheduled for 28.1.1994 but she had failed to deposit the required earnest money of Rs.60,000/ - and submit her option for such allotment.

THE State Commission held that the amounts of Rs.50,000/ - and Rs.9.500/ - were not deposited by Smt. Rita Mehra and as far as Smt. Kuljit Kaur was concerned, she had no legal status to remit the aforesaid amount since registration had not been transferred in her name. The State Commission also took the view that Smt. Rita Mehra did not pursue her application for transfer of the registration in favour of Smt. Kuljit Kaur till the year 2000 and she ceased to be the applicant with the respondent w.e.f. 20.6.1994, in terms of the letter dated 31.5.1994, whereby a last date was stipulated for depositing the earnest money and no such deposit was made by her by that date.

SECTION 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to the extent, it is relevant, provides that the State Commission shall not admit a complaint, unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. During the course of hearing, we asked the learned counsel for the appellants as to how the complaint filed before the State Commission on 31.01.2007 was within the limitation period prescribed under section 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, considering that the application, seeking transfer of the registration in favour of Smt. Kuljit Kaur was submitted on 22.06.1994 and PUDA, despite representations made by her, did not include her name in the draw of lots held on 01.08.1995 and 07.06.2000. The response of learned counsel was that the appellants kept on making representations to PUDA and higher -ups in Punjab Government but no action was taken on their representations because a vigilance case had been registered in the meanwhile on account of the registration having been transferred in the name of Smt. Mohinder Kaur on the basis of the forged signatures of Smt. Rita Mehra. In our opinion, making representations, one after the other, did not give any fresh cause of action to the complainants to approach the State Commission by way of a complaint. Having submitted the application seeking transfer of the registration in favour of Smt. Kuljit Kaur in June 1994 the complainants / appellants should not have waited for an indefinite period for a favourable decision on their application and the cause of action to approach the State Commission, for a direction to transfer the registration in the name of Smt. Kuljit Kaur accrued to them within a reasonable period of submitting the said application.

MORE importantly, when the respondent came to know that neither name of appellant no.1 Smt. Rita Mehra, nor the name of appellant no.2 Kuljit Kaur had been included in the draw of lots held on 01.08.1995, a definite cause of action accrued to them to approach the State Commission for a direction to the respondent to transfer the registration in favour of Smt. Kuljit Kaur and also consider her name for allotment of an appropriate plot of land.

THIS is complainants / appellants own case that a legal notice dated 02.06.2000 was sent by them to PUDA. Despite said notice, neither the name of the appellant/complainant no.1 nor appellant/complainant no.2 was included in the draw of lots held on 07.06.2000. Even thereafter, the appellants/complainants did not bother to approach the State Commission for ventilation of their grievance.

WE fail to appreciate how the complainants / appellants could have kept on making representation to the respondent when the name of neither of them was included either in the draw of lots held on 01.08.1995 and 07.06.2000. Serving a legal notice is normally the last step taken by an aggrieved person before he approaches a court/forum for grant of appropriate relief to him. Therefore, the appellants / complainants certainly ought to have filed their complaint within two years of serving the legal notice dated 02.06.2000. The subsequent representation made on 19.12.2006 could not have extended the period of limitation or given a fresh cause of action to them, particularly when the prescribed period of limitation for approaching the State Commission even if it computed from 02.06.2000 had already expired by that time. From whatever angle we may take, it cannot be disputed that the complaint when filed before the State Commission was hopelessly barred by limitation prescribed under Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

IT is contended by learned counsel for the complainants / appellants that the plea of limitation was not raised by the respondent before the State Commission. Even if that be so, it would be of no consequence since the provisions of Section 24A of the Act mandatory and rather pre -emptory in nature. The State Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain a complaint after expiry of the prescribed period of limitation, unless the complainant files an appropriate application under sub -section (2) of the said Section and satisfies it that he / she had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within the prescribed period of two years from the date on which the cause of action had arisen.

IN Haryana Urban Development Authority Vs. B.K. Sood, IV (2005) CPJ1 (SC), the Hon ''ble Supreme Court, referring to the provisions of Section 24 -A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, inter -alia observed as under: ''''11. The Section debars any Fora set up under the Act, admitting a complaint unless the complaint is filed within two years from the date of which the cause of action has arisen ''''.

In State Bank of India Vs. B.S. Agricultural Industries II (2009) CPJ 29 (SC), the Hon ''ble Supreme Court, considering the provisions of Section 24 -A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, inter -alia observed and held as under: ''''8. 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 24A is sort of a legislative command to be Consumer Forum to examine on its own whether the complaint has been filed within limitation period prescribed thereunder. 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 Consumer Forum to take notice of Section 24A 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 ''''.

In V.N. Shrikhande (Dr.) Vs. Anita Sena Fernandes IV (2010) CPJ 27 (SC), the Hon ''ble Supreme Court reiterated that Section 24A (1) contains a negative legislative mandate against admission of a complaint which has been filed after two years from the date of accrual of cause of action. It was further observed that the Consumer Forums do not have the jurisdiction to entertain a complaint if the same is not filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. The Apex Court held that if the complaint is per se barred by time and the complainant does not seek condonation of delay under sub -Section 24A(2), the consumer forums will have no option but to dismiss the same.

FOR the reasons stated hereinabove, we are of the considered view that the complaint, having been filed after expiry of the period of limitation prescribed in Section 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, was required to be dismissed at the very threshold. We therefore, find no good reason to interfere with the order dismissing the said complaint. The appeal is therefore, dismissed.