Saroj Devi Agarwal vs Manager, Sahara City Home

THERE is a delay of 216 days '' in filing the First Appeal before the State Commission. Amicus Curiae for the petitioner submits that as a matter of fact, there was delay of few days '' only, in filing the First Appeal, before the State Commission. As a matter of fact, the order of the District Forum, Dholpur, was announced on 25.11.2011.

WE have perused the file requisitioned from the State Commission. The petitioner has failed to file copy of the application for condonation of delay filed before the State Commission, along with this revision petition. However, the delay was explained in para 3 of the application for condonation of delay, filed before the State Commission, which runs as follows : - ''''3. That the respondents filed an appeal before this Hon ''ble Commission against the order dated 25.11.2011 which was dismissed by the Hon ''ble Commission but subsequently the respondents filed an appeal before the Hon ''ble National Commission at Delhi and when the appellant received the notices from the Hon ''ble National Commission, in the month of June, 2012, then only, the appellant came into the about the impugned order dated 25.11.2011, thereafter, the appeal approached her counsel and applied for certified copy of the impugned order dated 25.11.2011 on 10.07.2012, which was delivered to the appellant on 13.07.2012, thereafter, the appellant approached her counsel here at Jaipur on 30.07.2012, who prepared the same on same day and same is being submitted before this Hon ''ble Commission, on 31.07.2012, itself, without any further delay ''''.

If this version is taken to be as true, there is no delay in filing the First Appeal, before the State Commission.

WE have also perused the certified copy of the judgment of the District Forum, Dholpur. We have examined the rubber stamp affixed on the certified copy of the order of the District Forum. It is surprising to note that it does not mention as to when the free copy was furnished to the petitioner. It appears that the Registrar of the District Forum is not working properly and there is dereliction of duty on his part. First of all, the seal is not legible. Secondly, it does not mention, when the free copy was given. The order was announced on 25.11.2011, but the copy was furnished on 13.07.2012, after about 8 months. The Registrar of the District forum has failed to explain why there was delay of about 8 months. It appears that the Registrar of the District Forum tried to help the respondent, out of way. Registrar, District Forum, Dholpur, is directed to explain all these facts and submit the explanation within one month, from the receipt of this order, which must be counter -signed by the President of the District Forum, Dholpur. The President of the District Forum, Dholpur must know how the Registry, under it, works. It casts a film of doubt over the bonafides of the Registry. The Registry must make a proper enquiry and see to it that proper stamp, showing when the free copy was handed over to the parties, must be depicted.

IT is also surprising to note that the petitioner remained quiet and silent from 25.11.2011 to 13.07.2012. It was her duty to post herself of each date of hearing. This shows negligence on the part of the petitioner. The First Appeal was decided on 08.04.2013 . However, there is delay of 21 days '' in filing the revision petition. Warning bells should have rung, but the petitioner, again, acted negligently and did not file the revision petition, within time.

ALTHOUGH , the petitioner is wee bit negligent, yet, in the interest of justice, we find that delay is liable to be condoned, before the State Commission as well as before this Commission, and we hereby condone the said delay.

NOW , we turn to the merits of this case. The order passed by the State Commission, headed by Justice Ashok Parihar, is cryptic, as usual. However, we have perused the file. The complainant, Smt.Saroj Devi Agrawal, booked a flat with the Manager, Sahara City Home, OP1, and its employees, OPs 2, 3 and 4. She was supposed to pay the total price of the flat, in the sum of Rs.17,15,000/ -. The complainant paid a sum of Rs. 2,57,250/ - to the OPs. There is no dispute about the same. A Lucky -draw under Bumper Silver Scheme was taken out for all the customers by the OPs, wherein the complainant got the lucky -draw Bumper in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/ - which was deposited by the complainant under the said plot in Sahara City Home. Consequently, a sum of Rs.7,57,250/ - was deposited. Thereafter, the complainant could not deposit the remaining installments and her allotment was cancelled. The complainant sent a legal notice and a reminder, but it did not ring the bell. The amount already deposited by the petitioner was not given. She filed a complaint for refund of Rs.2,57,250/ -, compensation in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/ -, bumper draw amount of Rs.5,00,000/ -, interest amount in the sum of Rs.40,000/ -, notice expenses in the sum of Rs.750/ - and complaint expenses in the sum of Rs.2,000/ -, total amount, in the sum of Rs.10,00,000/ -. The complaint was partly allowed by the District Forum. It ordered that the OPs would pay an amount of Rs.2,57,250/ -, with interest @ 18% p.a. from 15.08.2009, till payment of the amount, besides Rs.2,000/ - as compensation. The State Commission dismissed the appeal filed by the complainant, as barred by time as well as on merits.

WE have heard the Amicus Curiae for the petitioner. He vehemently argued that the petitioner is entitled to lucky -draw bumper offer of Rs.5,00,000/ -. The area of the flat allotted to him was increased from 927.01 sq.ft to 954.73 sq.ft. The petitioner was ready to have that flat.

ORDER of the District Forum clearly goes to show that the complainant was informed about the increase in area of the flat and he was asked to deposit a sum of Rs.17,67,000/ -, instead of Rs.17,15,000/ -. The information was given to the petitioner vide letter dated 15.02.2010. Reminder letters were also sent, but the complainant did not deposit the said increased amount. Therefore, it appears that the complainant ''s allotment of flat was cancelled. The complainant himself has placed on record, copy of the allotment letter dated 21.08.2009 of Unit in Sahara City Homes, Jaipur, which is reproduced, as under : - ''''Sub : Allotment of Letter of Unit in Sahara City Homes, Jaipur. Dear Sir/Madam, In terms of your application dated 20.10.2005, we are pleased to allot you Unit NO.B9/601, Type 2 Bedroom on Sixth Floor having Unit Area/Plot Area/Terrace Area 86.15 sq.mt./ N.A./ N.A. at Sahara City Homes, Jaipur. Price of your unit is Rs.17,15,000/ -. This price does not include any other charges payable by you as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the application form. Please arrange to deposit the installments (as mentioned in the payment plan sent to you earlier) on the 1st day of the due month. For your convenience, we are enclosing a fresh copy of the payment schedule. Kindly note that in case the payment received on or after 16th of due month, interest @ 15% p.a., shall be charged on the amount of default from the due date till the date of actual payment. Further, in case of non -payment of the installment amount, after a maximum of three reminders sent within a period of 45 days, the allotment shall stand automatically cancelled without any further intimation to you. ... ... ... Possession of your unit is proposed to be handed over within 38 months from the date of allotment, subject to force majeure and the fulfillment of clauses as per the Terms and Conditions mentioned in the Application Form ''''.

This is also accompanied by another letter, dated 21.08.2009, under the caption ''Registration of Booking for Unit in Sahara City Homes, Jaipur '', and Payment Schedule, wherein 61 installments were to be paid on the dates mentioned therein. There is another letter dated 02.06.2010 sent by the OPs. Its relevant extract runs as follows : ''''We regret to inform you that in spite of our reminders dated 05.11.2009, 18.11.2009 and 04.12.2009, you have neither cleared your dues nor replied to our reminders. As a consequence of this and as already explained in our above referred allotment letter that in case of non -payment of installment amount, the allotment stands automatically cancelled. Since you have not paid your Eight last installments, management has decided to cancel your booking due to your payment default ''''.

WE are of the considered view that since the petitioner ''s allotment of flat was cancelled, therefore, she is not entitled to lucky draw amount of Rs.5,00,000/ -. Both the fora below have given concurrent findings against the petitioner. We see no merit in the submission made by the Amicus Curiae on behalf of the petitioner. The petitioner has waddled out of the commitments made by her. She should have deposited the amount. No receipt was shown that she paid the amounts as per schedule, mentioned by the OPs. The revision petition is sans merit and deserves dismissal, which, we hereby direct. No order as to costs.