S R Gurumukhi vs GREATER NOIDA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

THERE is delay of 41 days in filing this revision petition. The delay has been explained in para No.3 of the application for condonation of delay, which is reproduced here as under : - "That the petitioner / applicant is an old person and he is residing from the very far from Delhi so he could not file the revision within time, now he has preferred the present revision. However, due to ill -health and old age ailments, the delay caused further. However, it is respectfully submitted that the delay caused is neither intentional nor deliberate, however due to medical and ill -health reasons, including aforesaid, which may, in the interest of justice, may kindly be condoned".

THE petitioner has not bolstered his case with evidence. No medical certificate was produced. Mere old -age and without disclosing the actual age is no ground for condonation of delay. This view finds support from the following various authorities. (1) Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, 2011 4 CPJ 63 (2) R.B. Ramlingam v. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, 2009 1 CutLT 188 , (3) Ram Lal and Others v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., 1962 AIR(SC) 361.

THE Hon''ble Supreme Court in a recent case titled Sanjay Sidgonda Patil vs. Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr., Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 37183 of 2013, decided on 17.12.2013, confirmed the order of this Commission and refused to condone the delay of 13 days. Likewise, delay of 78 days'' was not condoned by the Apex Court in the case of M/s Ambadi Enterprise Ltd. vs. Smt. Rajalakshmi Subramanian in SLP No. 19896 of 2013 decided on 12.7.2013.

AGAIN , delay of 77 days'' was not condoned in case of Chief Off. Nagpur Hous. and Area Dev. Boa and Anr. vs. Gopinath Kawadu Bhagat, SLP No. 33792 of 2013 decided on 19.11.2013. In view of the foregoing discussion, the application for condonation of delay is rejected.

NOW , let us turn to the merits of the case. The case of the complainant, Dr. S.R.Gurumukhi is that he was allotted flat No.56, Sector Sigma -3, Greater Noida, by Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority, OP. The complainant decided to make the payment of the flat, including interest, within 4 years''. He paid the value of the flat and in addition to registration amount in the sum of Rs. 1,47,980/ - in 8 (eight) equal installments. The possession was to be delivered to the complainant, within a period of three years from the date of allotment, but the possession was not handed over to the complainant within the prescribed period. A proposal was made that the petitioner should get alternative flat in another Scheme, but the complainant declined. The complainant deposited the stamp fee for Rs. 1,19,200/ -. Consequently, the complainant suffered mental agony and inconvenience. He prayed that his amount should be returned along with compensation in the sum of Rs. 5,00,000/ -.

THE defence of the OP is that according to their claim, they were to construct 600 flats, but only 208 people had applied for it. Consequently, the complainant was given option to have flat in different sector, alternatively, but the complainant did not opt for the same. The OP admitted that letter for purchase of stamp paper was wrongly issued to the complainant, by mistake of computer. However, the complainant was informed that possession could be handed over to the complainant by March, 2009.

A complaint was filed before the District Forum. The District Forum passed the following order : - "The complaint has been accepted partly. It is ordered to the opposite party that it shall handover the possession of Flat No.56 as early as possible within six months, again ordered to the opposite party to pay the 12% p.a., interest on all deposited amount from 23.12.2005 till handing over the possession to the complainant. Again ordered to the opposite party to refund the amount of Rs. 1,19,200/ - with 6% p.a. deposited by the complainant as a stamp fee. Again ordered to the opposite party to pay to the complainant amount of Rs. 10,000/ - as a mental agony and harassment and cost of complaint of Rs. 3,000/ - within two months from this order".

AGGRIEVED by that order, both the parties filed appeals before the State Commission, which dismissed the same.

REVISION petition was filed by the complainant before this Commission. It was argued by the counsel for the petitioner/ complainant that the complainant is entitled to interest @ 15% p.a., compoundable on quarterly interest with 1% penal interest for first year and 5% p.a. penal interest, for subsequent five years, according to the policy of the respondent/OP. It was further averred that the complainant is also entitled to interest @ 15% p.a., compoundable on quarterly interest on the amount of Rs. 1,19,200/ - (stamp duty) and Rs. 1,49,120/ - towards lease deed registration. He is also entitled to Rs. 5,000/ - and litigation charges to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/ -. He further submitted that the respondent authority should also pay Rs. 38,240/ - for expenses, along with interest @ 15% p.a., thereon, which he had incurred for his stay and travel from Bombay to Greater Noida.

WE have perused the order passed by the District Forum. It does not suffer from any illegality or impropriety. All the grouses have already been taken care of.

IN our opinion, the amount granted by the State Commission is rather on the higher side. The court is not to be treated as a ''lottery'' or is not to enrich some persons unnecessarily. The revision petition is without merit and the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.