Estate Officer (Urban Estate Ludhiana) vs Jaswant Singh

The present appeal has been filed by the appellant - Estate Officer (Urban Estate Ludhiana) challenging the order dated 22nd September 2016 (allegedly pronounced on 10.3.2017) passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh ('the State Commission') in Miscellaneous Application No.3225 of 2015 in Consumer Complaint no.301 of 2015.

The brief facts relevant for the disposal of the present appeal are that the respondent was allotted MIG category flat number 806 by the appellant on 21st October 1985. On 8th November 1985 re-allotment letter was issued to the complainant allotting him flat number 919 costing Rs.67,748/-. Possession letter was also issued on the same day but the complainant could not take the possession on 8th November 1985 and the complainant did not come forward to take the possession for a long time. It is the case of the complainant that he had to go for outstation posting from 12th December 1985 to 31st May 1989. A consumer complaint was filed by the respondent/ complainant in the year 2006 before the District Forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellant/ opposite party. The District Forum, Ropar dismissed this complaint vide its order dated 16.10.2006 on the ground of limitation. Complainant then preferred an appeal before the State Commission being First Appeal no. 1613 of 2006 and the same was also dismissed vide order dated 06.08.2014. Complainant then preferred revision petition no. 1015 of 2015 before this Commission. This Commission vide its order dated 01.10.2015 allowed the revision petition to be withdrawn with liberty to withdraw the complaint before the District Forum and to file a fresh complaint before the District Forum. On the basis of this order the complainant filed a fresh complaint before the State Commission bearing number 301 of 2015. Later the complainant filed miscellaneous application before this Commission to amend the order dated 01.10.2015 for permitting the complaint to be filed before any forum. This Commission vide its order dated 11.11.2016 permitted the same. The State Commission while considering complaint number 301 of 2015 first decided the application for condonation of delay filed along with the complaint vide its order dated 22.09.2016 and held that the complaint was not time barred and listed the matter for hearing on maintainability. Later on, the State Commission vide its order dated 10.03.2017 directed the complaint to be transferred to the District Forum for disposal on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction.

Hence, this appeal has been filed against the order dated 22.09.2016 (allegedly pronounced on 10.3.2017).

Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record. The learned counsel for the appellant stated that the State Commission has finally decided that the State Commission did not have the pecuniary jurisdiction to deal with the complaint no.301 of 2015 filed by the complainant vide its order dated 10.03.2017. The learned counsel argued that even though the impugned order is dated 22.09.2016, but the State Commission has pronounced the same on 10.03.2017 along with separate order dated 10.03.2017 where it has been stated that the State Commission did not have the pecuniary jurisdiction and matter was remanded to the District Forum. The learned counsel further stated that the order of 22.09.2016 also bears the date of decision as 10.03.2017. It clearly means that this was only pronounced on 10.03.2017. Thus, the order dated 22.09.2016 treating the complaint as within time has become illegal and without jurisdiction. Therefore, the same cannot be sustained and needs to be set aside. The learned counsel apprehended that if this order is not set aside, the complainant may try to take advantage of this order before the District Forum. When the complaint has been sent to the District Forum for disposal, it should be the duty of the District Forum to independently assess this aspect of limitation. To support his contention the learned counsel referred to the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Pundalik Haribhau Chandekar Vs. Jagdish Dadaji Bind, 2009 SCC OnLine Bom 1932, wherein following has been held:

"10. Learned Ad hoc District Judge-5, Nagpur has found that there was sufficient cause, which prevented petitioner from filing an appeal within time, but then it also correctly found that appeal was not provided for and hence, application for condonation of delay before it was misconceived. It is apparent that whether the proceedings in relation to which delay was sought to be explained, were maintainable before that court was the first issue and after satisfaction about the maintainability of appeal, the jurisdiction to condone delay could have been exercised by that Court. If the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, it could not have condoned the delay in filing the same before it. The approach of learned Ad hoc District Judge, therefore, is neither erroneous nor perverse. There is no jurisdictional error."

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/ complainant stated that the complaint no.301 of 2015 has been filed by the complainant before the State Commission in compliance of the order of the National Commission dated 01.10.2015 as modified by order dated 11.11.2016. The learned counsel further mentioned that there is no request from the appellant to set aside the order dated 22.09.2016. Therefore, this Commission cannot consider the order dated 22.09.2016 for setting it aside. Consumer forum is required to first decide the issue of limitation before admitting a complaint as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India Vs. M/s. B.S. Agricultural Industries (I) AIR 2009 SC 2210 as under:-

"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".

The learned counsel further referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Urban Improvement Trust, Bikaner Vs. Mohan Lal, AIR 2010 SC (Supp) 504 to emphasise that Government agencies should not indulge in frivolous litigation particularly on technical issues. The appellant herein is also a part of the State Government and therefore, this judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is fully applicable in the present case. The appellant is unnecessarily harassing the respondent complainant.

I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by both the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the material on record.

It is true that Consumer Forum is required to examine issue of limitation before admitting a complaint as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Bank of India vs BS Agricultural (Supra). However, if the Forum does not have the jurisdiction, the order passed in this regard would also be a nullity as this is without jurisdiction.

The jurisdiction is the factor that gives the court the authority to deal with a particular case. If the Forum does not have territorial jurisdiction to decide a particular complaint then it does not have the power to pass any other order in respect of that case. Jurisdiction is germane to the judicial hierarchical system and any order passed without jurisdiction is a nullity. In this regard, the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Pundalik Haribhau Chandekar Vs. Jagdish Dadaji Bind (supra) has laid down that delay cannot be condoned if the court does not have the jurisdiction to decide the complaint. This seems quite logical also that a court which does not have jurisdiction over a particular matter cannot pass any order on any aspect of that matter. Therefore, in my view, the order of the State Commission passed on 22.09.2016 is without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained. So far as the order dated 10.03.2017 is concerned, it is seen that the State Commission has remitted the matter to the District Forum for decision on the complaint which was originally filed before the State Commission on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction.

I also find that there is a request in the prayer to set aside the order dated 22.09.2016 passed by the State Commission in the Consumer Complaint no.301 of 2015 hence, the assertion of the learned counsel for the respondent/ complainant is not correct that there is no request for setting aside the order dated 22.09.2016.

Based on the above discussion the First Appeal No. 993 of 2017 is partly allowed and the order dated 22.09.2016 is set aside. However, the order dated 10.03.2017 is upheld as the matter has rightly been remanded to the District Forum for deciding the complaint afresh on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction. It is further made clear that this Commission while passing the order dated 01.10.2015 and 11.11.2016 has not expressed any opinion on the delay aspect of the complaint and the District Forum is required to adjudicate upon the aspect of delay as well.