Arjun Prasad Dubey vs President, Priyadarshini Grih Nirman & 3 Ors

This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Arjun Prasad Dubey against the order dated 21.06.2016 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chhattisgarh, (in short 'the State Commission') passed in First Appeal No.FA/2016/19.

The brief facts leading to this revision petition are that the petitioner entered into an agreement to sell with the respondent opposite party for a plot of land admeasuring 4000 square feet @ Rs.2/- per square feet. This agreement was entered into between the parties in the year 1987. When the possession was not given by the opposite party, the complainant represented before the Dy. Registrar of Co-operative Societies who ordered refund of the deposited amount or to allot a plot in the new scheme. The opposite party sent a letter of refund of the deposited amount on 31st October 1990 in compliance of the order of the Deputy Registrar. The opposite parties sent the money order dated 29th July, 1991, however, the same was returned by the complainant on 6th September, 1991. It is the allegation of the complainant that when the opposite party was contacted, it was promised to the complainant that the plot will be offered once the development proposal is approved by the Town and Country Planning Department. As per the information of the complainant this permission was received in the year 2007, however, no intimation was given to the complainant by the opposite party. The complainant then again represented to the opposite party for the registry of the said plot but the complainant received no reply from the opposite party. Complainant then tried to get some information under the RTI Act in respect of the status of the said land and the same was received only in the year 2014. The complainant then filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, which was dismissed on account of being barred by limitation. The complainant then preferred an appeal before the State Commission and the State Commission dismissed the appeal vide its order dated 21.06.2016.

Hence the present revision petition.

Heard the petitioner in person and perused the record. The petitioner resisted the facts of the case as given above and stated that the period of 2 years should be counted from the date when he received the final reply to the notice in the year 2014. It was argued by the petitioner that both the fora below have erred in not appreciating that the cause of action actually arose in the year 2014.

I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the petitioner and have examined the material on record. In fact, first the matter was represented by the complainant before the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies and an order was passed that the complainant be allotted a plot in the new scheme or his money should be refunded. The opposite party chose to refund the amount paid by the complainant, however, the complainant did not accept the refund. The complainant kept on pursuing the matter intermittently with the opposite party from the year 1991 when he refused refund till the year 2010 when he gave a notice to the opposite party for registering the said plot. However, no complaint was filed even after this year when the complainant did not receive any reply from the opposite party. Thus, first of all, if the complainant wanted to challenge the order of the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, he should have taken the appropriate action of filing the appeal against that order under the Co-operative Societies Act or should have moved to a competent forum at that time. This order of the Deputy Registrar was not challenged and therefore, it became final.

The power to condone delay rests with the trial forum and the District Forum has not accepted the reasons given for delay in the present complaint case. The State Commission had also not accepted the same. Clearly the complainant has not taken any action from 1991 till 2010 and again from 2010 till 2014. The actual cause of action had arisen only in the year 1991 when the order of the Deputy Registrar was passed and the opposite party refunded the amount. Both the fora below are right in observing that no amounts of further correspondence can extend the period of limitation which is to be counted from the date of cause of action. In this the contention of the complainant cannot be accepted that the limitation should be counted from the year 2014 when he received the reply of the notice under RTI Act. This Commission also in its revisionary power would not like to condone huge delay of more than 20 years as special periods of limitation are prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for speedy disposal of consumer disputes. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State Bank of India Vs. M/s. B.S. Agricultural Industries (I) AIR 2009 SC 2210 has observed:-

"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 the 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 the 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".

From the above observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is clear that a Consumer Forum is required to deal with the aspect of delay in filing the consumer complaint at the admission stage. The District Forum has rightly analysed the case, from the point of view of delay in filing the complaint. Both the fora below have found that complaint has been filed with inordinate delay and therefore, both the fora below have ordered dismissal of the complaint. Both the fora below have given concurrent finding of facts relating to delay in filing the present consumer complaint. The Scope under the revision petition against concurrent finding of facts is quite limited and the facts cannot be reassessed at the stage of revision petition as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta vs. United India Insurance Company, 2011 (3) Scale 654. Apart from this, I also agree with the finding given by the District Forum and the State Commission as examined above.

Based on the above discussion, I do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order dated 21.06.2016 of the State Commission which calls for any interference from this Commission. Accordingly, the revision petition No.2281 of 2017 is dismissed.