Avdesh Kumar Barthaiya vs Area Manager, Upsidc & 2 Ors

This revision petitioner has been filed by the petitioner Avdesh Kumar Barthaiya, against the order dated 04.08.2017 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh, (in short 'the State Commission') passed in FA No.2064 of 2012.

Brief facts of the case are that the complainant/petitioner is the allottee of the plot having area of 2000 sq.mtr. in the Industrial Area, Mathura, which was allotted to the petitioner/complainant by letter dated 13.4.1978 of the opposite parties No.1 & 2. Complainant was required to pay 10% of the total price of the plot. After making the above said payment, allotment of the plot was made in the name of the complainant. Complainant has been making the payments from time to time. Complainant has always been ready and willing to execute the agreement to sell and to take the possession of the plot, but the respondents have always delayed the execution of the documents. On 25.7.1981, respondents cancelled the allotment of the plot and forfeited the amount paid by the complainant/petitioner. Complainant had deposited Rs.9302.69 with the respondents. The complainant filed a complaint bearing No.214 of 1994 before the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Mathura (in short 'the District Forum') for refund of the amount paid along with interest. The District Forum vide its order dated 25.07.2012 allowed the complaint and directed the respondents to refund Rs.9302.60 along with interest @12% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till realisation. The opposite parties were also directed to pay a compensation of Rs.6000/- and cost of litigation as Rs.5000/- and the order was to be complied within a period of 30 days.

Aggrieved by the order dated 25.7.2012 of the District Forum, complainant preferred an appeal bearing No.2064 of 2012 before the State Commission and the State Commission dismissed the appeal vide impugned order dated 04.08.2017.

Hence the revision petition.

Heard the leaned counsel for the petitioner at the admission stage.

Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that State Commission wrongly held that the allotment of the unit was cancelled because the petitioner had failed to make the payment of the plot. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that State Commission wrongly held that there was no need for the enhancement of the compensation for the mental agony and harassment. No fora below have considered the fact that the petitioner had to suffer double loss because of the actions of the respondents. First of all, he could not get the plot whose value would have been many fold now, and secondly he has suffered mental agony and harassment.

Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that fora below have totally ignored the fact that the petitioner had duly paid the interest amount for the alleged period from 01.4.1980 till 31.12.1980 and the same was received by the respondents. It was prayed for allowing the revision petition and to modify the order dated 04.08.2017 by allowing increased compensation.

I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and examined the record. It is seen that the cancellation of the allotment was done on 25.07.1981. However, the complainant has filed the consumer complaint in the year 1994. Thus, cause of action has arisen in the year 1981. The complaint could have been filed within two years of this cancellation. However, the complaint has been filed after about more than 10 years from the arising of cause of action. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that it was continuing cause of action as the amount was not refunded by the opposite parties even after cancellation of the allotment, I do not agree with the contention of the counsel for the petitioner because in this situation, it was all the more necessary for the complainant to file complaint either for cancellation of the letter of cancellation or for refund of the amount. Clearly, the complaint was barred by limitation. The learned counsel for the petitioner also argued that the point of limitation was not raised by the opposite party and therefore, no forum has decided this issue and both the fora below have decided the complaint treating it to be within limitation. As the issue of limitation was not raised before the fora blow and the complaint has been decided on merit, this Commission does not intend to dismiss the complaint at this stage.

Even on merits, I find that the amount deposited by the complainant has been ordered to be refunded along with interest @12% p.a., which seems to be reasonable and justified. Moreover, it is also seen that for a refund of Rs.9302.60, the District Forum has already awarded a compensation of Rs.6000/- and a cost of Rs.5000/-. Therefore, it cannot be said that no compensation has been awarded for mental agony and harassment. In my view, no case is made out for enhancement of these amounts.

Based on the above discussion, I do not find any ground to interfere with the order dated 04.08.2017 passed by the State Commission as no illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error is found in that order. Consequently, the RP No.3597 of 2017 is dismissed at the admission stage.