SYED NIZAM ALI MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S. MYSORE HOME DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. vs C.S. BHAVANI W/O. M. VENKATESH, & ORS.

This batch of 10 Revision Petitions, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), has been filed by a Developer, arrayed either as the sole Opposite Party or the Opposite Parties in the Complaints under the Act, against a common order dated 09.11.2010, passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Bangalore (for short "the State Commission"), in Appeals No. 1313, 1314, 1315, 1367, 1368, 1369, 1370, 1372, 1373 and 1374 of 2010. The said Appeals were filed by the Petitioner herein against different orders passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Mysore (for short "the District Forum") in Complaint Cases No. 438, 439, 440, 404, 405, 412, 420, 339, 481 and 490 of 2009. By the said orders, the District Forum had allowed the Complaints and had, inter-alia, directed the Petitioner to refund the amounts paid by each of the Complainants, with varied rate of interest and other benefits from the date of filing of the Complaints till realization. The order dated 28.04.2016 passed by the State Commission in Appeal No. 2102 of 2012 has also been impugned in this Revision Petition. By the said order, the State Commission has dismissed the said Appeal, preferred by the Petitioner against the order dated 15.11.2012, whereby the District Forum had issued non-bailable warrants against him.

Insofar as Appeals No. 1313, 1314 and 1315 of 2010 are concerned, by the impugned order dated 09.11.2010, the State Commission, while holding that the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Mysore (for short "the District Forum") was justified in directing the Petitioner to refund a sum of 4,20,000/- with a default stipulation for payment of interest @ 18% per annum on the said amount from the date of filing of the Complaints till realization, has directed the Petitioner to pay to each of the Complainants the said amount within a period of two months from the date of the order, failing which the amount shall carry interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of filing of the Complaints till realization.

As regards Appeals No. 1367, 1368, 1369 and 1370 of 2010, the State Commission, while setting aside the direction given by the District Forum to the Petitioner to pay "an additional 15% extra amount on the advance received to the respective complainants, within a month from the date of order, failing which said amount also shall carry interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of respective Complaints" , has directed the Petitioner to refund the advance amount deposited by the Complainants within a period of two months from the date of the order, failing which the amount shall carry interest at 18% p.a. from the date of receipt of the advance amount till realization.

Insofar as Appeals No. 1372, 1373 and 1374 of 2010 are concerned, the State Commission, while setting aside the direction of paying "additional 15% extra amount", has directed the Petitioner to pay 3,60,000/-, 2,85,000/- and 3,15,000/- respectively to the Complainants within a period of two months from the date of the order, failing which the amounts shall carry interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of receipt of the advance amount (in Appeal No. 1372 of 2010) and from the date of agreement (in Appeals No. 1373 and 1374 of 2010) till realization. Besides, the direction regarding costs, as awarded by the District Forum in the Complaints, has been maintained.

In arriving at the said conclusion, the Fora below took into consideration the following salient facts, which are more or less identical in all the Complaints, giving rise to the present Revision Petitions: The Petitioner/Developer had issued an advertisement, promoting a Housing Layout in different localities of Mysore with all civic amenities. The Complainants had applied for purchase of sites and also deposited certain amounts with the Petitioner, whereupon agreements were executed between the Petitioner and the Complainants. As per the terms and conditions of the agreements, the Petitioner failed to deliver possession of the sites booked by the Complainants. Even the cheques issued by the Petitioner towards refund of the amounts deposited by the Complainants were returned unpaid with the remarks "funds insufficient". In this background, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioner, the Complainants preferred their respective Complaints before the District Forum.

It is pointed out by the Office that these Revision Petitions are barred by limitation, inasmuch as there is a delay of 1984 days in filing the same. An Application, praying for condonation of the said delay, has been filed in Revision Petition No. 2108 of 2016. In paragraphs 3 - 11 of the said Application, the Petitioner has furnished the following explanation, in a narrative form:

"3. It is most respectfully submitted that the Impugned Order passed on 09.11.2010 and the copy of the Impugned Order received by the Petitioner only on 24.05.2016.

That the Petitioner herein was willing to comply the direction of the Ld. State Commission as this matter was a bunch matter of 10 complainants. Ld. State Commission vide its order dated 09.11.2010 disposed of all 10 Appeals with direction to refund the amount in lumpsump Rs.4,20,000/- to each complainant. It is relevant to mention here that this was a huge amount and appellant got burden to pay all the sum within 2 months (in some of the appeal within 1 month).

That the Petitioner was arranging the funds for the compliance of the direction passed by the Fora below but somehow the petitioner could not do the same within the short period granted by the Ld. State Commission.

That immediately before the expiry of the time for compliance of the order of Ld. State Commission, petitioner moved an Application before Ld. State Commission for extension of time on 11.01.2011. Vide order dated 02.02.2011, Ld. State Commission dismissed the application with the observation/direction to make the plea before Ld. District Forum.

That petitioner moved an application before the Ld. District Forum for extension of time, the same was rejected by Ld. District Forum vide its order dated 15.11.2012 and non-bailable warrant was issued by the Ld. District Forum.

That the petitioner paid the awarded amount to the respective complainants without the interest, which was levied in case of default.

That the petitioner moved an application before Ld. State Commission challenging the order 15.11.2012 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Mysore in which the Fora had issued non-bailable warrant against the petitioner as well as no liberty or extension of time was granted by the Ld. District Fora.

That Ld. State Commission vide its order dated 28.04.2016 dismissed the Appeal filed by the petitioner. The certified copy of the same was received on 27.06.2016. The petitioner immediately moved the present Revision Petition challenging the order dated 09.11.2010 as well as order dated 28.04.2016.

That on 14.07.2016, the counsel for the petitioner filed the revision before this Hon''ble Commission. Therefore, in these bonafide circumstances the present Revision Petition is being within the delay ..... days."

We have heard learned counsel for the Petitioner on the question of delay.

To say the least, the explanation furnished by the Petitioner is wholly unsatisfactory. At the outset, it may be noted that it is not the case of the Petitioner that he was not aware of the impugned order dated 09.11.2010. When the State Commission, while maintaining the direction given to the Petitioner by the District Forum to refund certain amounts to the Complainants with interest, had granted only two months time to comply with the said order, the Counsel, representing the Petitioner in the said Appeals, must have informed him about the same, which is fortified by the averments made in para-6 of the Application to the effect that in order to comply with directions issued by the State Commission, the Petitioner had subsequently approached it, praying for extension of time. Vide order dated 02.02.2011, the said prayer was declined by the State Commission, with a direction to the Petitioner to approach the District Forum in this regard. In view of the fact that the Petitioner had started refunding the principal amount to the Complainants, it is evident that the impugned order was acceptable to the Petitioner. In such a situation, if he only wanted some time to pay the interest amount to the Complainants, we fail to fathom any reason why the Petitioner took ten months in approaching the District Forum, in terms of order dated 02.02.2011 passed by the State Commission. The District Forum, vide its order dated 15.11.2012, while rejecting the prayer for extension of time, had issued non-bailable warrants against the Petitioner, against which the Petitioner again preferred another Appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission vide its order dated 28.04.2016, which is also impugned in this Revision Petition, has dismissed the same. It is in this background that the Petitioner has filed the present Revision Petitions, challenging the legality and correctness of both the impugned orders, dated 09.11.2010 and 28.04.2016. In our view, since the impugned order dated 09.11.2010 was a substantive order, there was no reason for the Petitioner to keep quite for such a long time, ignoring the limitation period provided under the Act for challenging the same. The subsequent events, viz. Petitioner''s approaching the State Commission/District Forum for extension of time; the District Forum issuing non-bailable warrants against him; and then his again approaching the State Commission against the issuance of non-bailable warrants, are irrelevant events in for so far as the question of condonation of limitation in challenging the order dated 09.11.2010 is concerned.

For the foregoing reasons, we are of the view that apart from the fact that the Application is not bonafide, the Petitioner has failed to make out any cause, much less a "sufficient cause" for condonation of inordinate delay of 1984 days in filing of the present Revision Petitions.

Bearing in mind the afore-stated facts and the observations of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority [(2011) 14 SCC 578] to the effect that while deciding an application for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Act for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the Consumer Foras are entertained, we are not inclined to condone an inordinate delay of 1984 days in filing of the present Revision Petitions, more so when condonation of such unexplained delay would cause further harassment to the hapless Complainants, who, for more than nine years, are still waiting for refund of their hard earned money, deposited with the Petitioner in the hope of getting the possession of the sites booked by them.

Consequently, all the Revision Petitions are dismissed in limine on the short ground of limitation.