GURDIAL SINGH vs Ludhiana Imrovement Trust

REVISION petition no. 921 of 2014 has been filed against the judgment/ order dated 01.12.2011 of the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (''the State Commission'') in First Appeal no. 99 of 2006.

THE brief facts of the case as per the petitioner/ complainant are that the petitioner had one fourth share in the land measuring 95 kanals as entered in the jamabandi for the year 1971 -72. The said land was acquired by the respondent in the year 1971. The petitioner had made a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Collector for enhancement of the amount of compensation. It was accepted by the District Judge, Ludhiana vide order dated 21.10.1985 and he was paid the enhanced amount of compensation. Therefore the petitioner was a local displaced person.

THE petitioner had applied for a plot in his capacity as a local displaced person and had deposited a sum of Rs.500/ - on 30.09.1987. In the year 1992 the petitioner had received a letter dated 06.11.1992 from the respondent asking the petitioner to submit the filled proforma for the allotment of plot and the same was submitted by the petitioner on 30.11.1992. In response to another letter dated 27.11.1996, issued by the respondent, the petitioner had appeared before the Committee and had submitted all the required documents. The petitioner had also appeared before the Executive Officer of the respondent at Ludhiana. The petitioner had also made written representation on 22.10.2001 to the respondents for the allotment of a plot but the matter was postponed on one pretext or the other. Still no plot of 500 sq. yards was allotted to the petitioner at the reserved price as was prevalent in the year 1987. Hence, the complaint for allotment of a plot, compensation, interest and costs were also prayed. The respondent/ opposite party/ Trust in their written statement stated that the complaint was barred by limitation. The petitioner had no vested right to the allotment of a plot as local displaced person from the respondents. Mere filing of an application with an amount of Rs.500/ - did not give him any right for allotment of a plot. It was admitted that the petitioner had deposited a sum of Rs.500/ - on 30.09.1987 but his application was barred by limitation having been filed sixteen years after his share of land was acquired in 1971.

THE respondent/ trust have further stated that notification under Section 36 of the Punjab Improvement Town Act was issued for development of 550 Acre Scheme of Village Sunet. It was announced on 12.02.1971. The permission was accorded by the State Government under Section 42 of the said Act and the award was pronounced on 19.04.1974. Gurdial Singh, Narinder Singh, Joginder Singh and Hardial Singh had 2/5th share with Phuman Singh have 3/5th share in the total land measuring 94 K 19 M. Guridal Singh was the owner of the land to the extent of 9K 10 M which was a joint holding of total land measuring 94 K 19 M. However, the respondent/ trust had not denied considering the case of the petitioner as a local displaced person. One plot, in fact had been allotted to Mohinder Singh son of Phuman Singh (Brother of the petitioner) vide allotment letter dated 18.03.1985. Hence, the respondent/ trust had sought dismissal of the complaint.

THE District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana (''the District Forum'') vide its order dated 17.11.2006 had dismissed the complaint.

AGGRIEVED by the order of the District Forum, the petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission vide their order dated 01.12.2011 had dismissed the appeal. The State Commission while dismissing the appeal observed as under: "14. Therefore, the cause of action had arisen to the appellant in 1971 when the land was acquired or in 1974 when the award was pronounced or it had accrued on 30.09.1987 when he deposited an amount of Rs.500/ - or if it had accrued on 30.11.1992 or 27.11.1996 but still the plot was not allotted to him. Therefore, the complaint was required to be filed within a period of two years. As stated above, the complaint has been filed by the appellant in the District Forum on 25.09.2003. Therefore, this complaint was totally barred by limitation. 15. We find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents that the complaint filed by the appellant in the District Forum on 23.09.2003 was barred by limitation.

Keeping in view the discussion held above, it is clearly proved that the complaint was barred by limitation and no reason has been shown by the appellant for condonation of delay. 23. In view of the discussion held above, there is no merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed."

DISSATISFIED by the order of the State Commission, the petitioner has filed this present revision petitioner before us.

REVISION petition has been filed with a delay of 664 days as per the report of the Registry. Along with the revision petition, the petitioner has filed an application for condonation of delay of 700 days. The reasons given for the delay in the application are that: The State Commission passed the judgment on 01.12.2011, as per the record this judgment was dispatched on 05.01.2012 to the petitioner through post however, the petitioner is not in possession of the record regarding the date of delivery and copy of the judgment as the petitioner was not mentally well and was under depression. He is not in possession of the judgment and does not even remember where it is. In fact in the month of July 2011, the petitioner started feeling giddiness, forgetfulness and depression and would not like to do anything just lying on bed. This position continued aggravation resulting into hospitalisation and continuous treatment. The petitioner started receiving continuous treatment from various doctors but the position did not improve. After getting treatment from various doctors the petitioner consulted Dr S K Joshi MD of Joshi Nursing Home, Aggar Nagar, Ludhiana. The petitioner felt well by taking treatment under Dr S K Joshi, therefore, his family members continued the treatment. Ultimately, in the month of January 2014, his conditions stabilised the petitioner started remembering the things. He inquired from his advocate Shri Sukhpal Singh about the outcome of the case which he had filed in 2006. The said advocate told the petitioner that the case has already been reserved for judgment. After getting particulars from the advocate, further inquiry was made from the registers from the State Commission and it transpired that the judgment has been released on 01.12.2011 and is shown to have been dispatched to the parties on 05.01.2012. As submitted earlier, as per record it has been delivered to the petitioner but the petitioner don''t remember when and does not have any copy of the judgment of the State Commission. After obtaining the certified copy, the matter was consulted with the undersigned counsel. He advised to bring all the medical record. The petitioner handed over the medical record whatever he was having to the counsel on 24.01.2014. On telephonic instructions, the copy of the judgment, copy of the complaint, written statement before the District Forum and all the annexures were also taken from the advocate Shri Sukhpal Singh and handed over to the counsel. On 26.01.2014, the case was prepared. On 27.01.2014, all the papers prepared by the undersigned counsel were taken for signatures and after getting the documents signed and affidavits attested, in the evening the signed papers were handed over to the counsel and the present case is being filed today that is on 28.01.2014. Copy of the medical prescription slip dated 11.10.2012, 26.03.2013, 28.06.2013, 02.08.2013 and 21.11.2013 are attached as Annexure A 1 to A 5. The petitioner is more than 87 years old with above said incapacity. Now with the help of his relatives and friends, this case is being filed without any further delay.

WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the records of the case. Learned counsel for the petitioner merely urged that the petitioner is an old gentleman of about 87 years and afflicted with lot of medical problems, hence, the delay. He also drew our attention to the medical records on file. Learned counsel for the respondent stated that the petitioner has failed to explain the day to day delay of 664/700 days. The medical records on the file are merely prescriptions for consultation with Dr S K Joshi during the period 27.11.2011 to 21.11.2013. He also drew our attention to the fact that as rightly stated by the State Commission, the complaint itself had been filed with a considerable delay of 16 years and the State Commission had rightly dismissed the complaint as barred by limitation. Further, the petitioner had no vested right to the allotment of a plot as local displaced person from the respondent. Mere filing of an application with an amount of Rs.500/ -, 16 years after the land was acquired in 1971 did not give him any right of allotment of plot. Further, no plot had been allotted to him hence, he is not a consumer.

WE have carefully gone through the record. The prescriptions and the medical certificates placed on file only to show that the petitioner was suffering from ailments and diseases which normally afflict persons of his age. He suffered from diabetes, skin ailment, benign prostate enlargement, hypertension and Meniere''s disease which is a disease of inner ear. The doctor in his certificate dated 24.01.2014 has merely stated that the patient has stabilised with the treatment. He has nowhere stated that the petitioner had suffered from any ailment for which he was bed ridden or was advised bed rest which could have prevented him from contacting his lawyer to pursue his case for over 664/ 700 days. As per the certificate the petitioner was under treatment of DMTZ c DPN c Mon. Ess. HTN c Menier re''s Disease c BPH.

AT the same time, it is also well settled that "sufficient cause" with regard to condonation of delay in each case, is a question of fact.

IN the matter of Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, 2011 4 CPJ 63(SC), the Apex Court has highlighted the object of Consumer Protection Act particularly expeditious and in expensive remedy to the consumers. "It is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if this Court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the Consumer Foras".

IN Balwant Singh Vs. Jagdish Singh and Ors., (Civil Appeal no. 1166 of 2006), decided by the Apex Court on 08.07.2010 it was held: "The party should show that besides acting bonafide, it had taken all possible steps within its power and control and had approached the Court without any unnecessary delay. The test is whether or not a cause is sufficient to see whether it could have been avoided by the party by the exercise of due care and attention. [Advanced Law Lexicon, P. Ramanatha Aiyar, 3rd Edition, 2005]".

IN Ram Lal and Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., 1962 AIR(SC) 361, it has been observed; "It is, however, necessary to emphasize that even after sufficient cause has been shown a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a matter of right. The proof of a sufficient cause is a discretionary jurisdiction vested in the Court by S.5. If sufficient cause is not proved nothing further has to be done; the application for condonation has to be dismissed on that ground alone. If sufficient cause is shown then the Court has to enquire whether in its discretion it should condone the delay. This aspect of the matter naturally introduces the consideration of all relevant facts and it is at this stage that diligence of the party or its bona fides may fall for consideration; but the scope of the enquiry while exercising the discretionary power after sufficient cause is shown would naturally be limited only to such facts as the Court may regard as relevant."

SIMILARLY in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., vs Kailash Devi and Ors., 1994 AIR(P&H) 45, it has been laid down that: "There is no denying the fact that the expression sufficient cause should normally be construed liberally so as to advance substantial justice but that would be in a case where no negligence or inaction or want of bona fide is imputable to the applicant. The discretion to condone the delay is to be exercised judicially i.e. one of is not to be swayed by sympathy or benevolence."

IN R.B. Ramlingam Vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, 2009 2 Scale 108, it has been observed: "We hold that in each and every case the Court has to examine whether delay in filing the special appeal leave petitions stands properly explained. This is the basic test which needs to be applied. The true guide is whether the petitioner has acted with reasonable diligence in the prosecution of his appeal/petition."

THE present case is fully covered under the case laws cited above Supra. Further, the petitioner has failed to give any reasons to explain the day to day delay of 664/700 days.

ACCORDINGLY , we find that there is no ''sufficient cause'' to condone the delay of 664/700 days in filing the present revision petition. The application for condonation of delay is without any merit as well as having no legal basis and is not maintainable. Consequently, the present revision petition being time barred by limitation and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.