Lok Ram vs Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board

CHALLENGE in this appeal filed by the appellants Lok Ram and Chajju Ram is in respect of order dated 6.1.2005 and the order dated 25.5.2005 passed by District Forum, Hisar whereby Complaint Case No. 186 of 2002 filed by the appellants was dismissed and Misc. Application No. 2 of 2005 for review of the order dated 6.1.2005 was also dismissed.

THE facts as spelled out from the record are that Lok Ram-complainant had purchased plot No. 28 measuring 20'' x 75'' located in Mandi Balsamand, Tehsil and District Hisar in an open auction on 1.9.1982 for a sum of Rs. 48,000. He had paid Rs. 12,000 as 25% of sale price of this plot vide receipt No. 170/67738 dated 1.9.1982 to Market Committee, Hisar. A formal letter of allotment dated 23.2.1983 was also issued to him by the Market Committee. Remaining 75% of the sale price was to be deposited in three equal instalments of Rs. 12,000 along with interest due on 1.4.1983, 1.10.1983 and 1.4.1984. At the time of auction, the complainant was informed that working of Grain Market will commence within a period of six months. After taking possession of the plot, the complainant constructed a shop thereon in the month of March, 1983. However, the opposite party did not start development work as promised which compelled the complainant to sold the plot to Chajju Ram on 14.7.1983 vide agreement to sell dated 9.8.1983 and a GPA No. 306 dated 14.7.1983. An application along with affidavits was submitted in the office of Market Committee, Hisar on 17.7.1983 for transfer of the plot in favour of Chajju Ram-complainant No. 2. Both the complainants requested the opposite party to complete development work but as it was not completed, complainant No. 2 did not pay balance instalments he had been ready and willing to pay the same subject to completion of development work. On 4.4.2002 the complainant No. 2 come to know that plot in question has been resumed by the opposite party on 10.5.2001 on account of non-payment of balance price of the plot. It is thereafter, the complainants filed the present complaint seeking direction to set aside the resumption order dated 10.5.2001 passed by opposite party No. 2, to transfer the plot in question in favour of complainant No. 2 on the basis of application for transfer already submitted. THE complainants also claimed interest on the deposited amount @ 18% per annum from the date of deposit till completion of development work and compensation of Rs. four lacs on account of loss suffered by them. THEy also sought direction against the opposite party not to charge interest on the balance amount till the completion of the development work and further claimed Rs. 5,000 as costs of litigation. It was also averred by the complainant No. 1 that he has incurred expenses of Rs. 5 lacs by raising construction of his shop. The opposite parties in their written statement did not dispute the allotment of the plot made to complainant No. 1 as per terms stated in the complaint, but at the same time, maintained that the complainant failed to deposit the remaining sale price in three equal instalments of Rs. 12,000 on the due dates along with interest and thus committed breach of terms of auction. It was further pleaded that the payment of instalments made, is not co-related with the development work as asserted in the complaint. Action of the complainant-Lok Ram in selling the shop to Chajju Ram without depositing the balance sale price was termed as violation and for that reason the application of complainant No. 2 could not be considered being in violation of condition No. 12 of the allotment letter issued to complainant No. 1. It was further pleaded by them that the complainant has no legal right to carry out any construction on the plot in question.

After appraisal of the pleadings and documents produced on the record by the parties, the District Forum found no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and dismissed the complaint on 6.1.2005.

SUBSEQUENT thereto, an application for review and recall of the order dated 6.1.2005 was moved by the complainants on 2.2.2005 on the ground that the report of the Local Commissioner had not been taken into consideration by the District Forum and for that reason the order in question be reviewed. It was rejected on the ground that there is no provision under the Consumer Protection Act to review the order passed by the District Forum. It is thereafter, the present appeal has been filed challenging both the above mentioned orders. Along with the appeal, an application for condonation of day of 137 days in filing the appeal, has been filed. We have heard the learned Counsel for the applicant-appellant. The grounds stated in the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal are as under: "(2) That the impugned order was passed on 6.1.2005 and the appellants have applied for certified copy on 10.1.2005 and received the same on 12.1.2005. But due to the wrong advice of the Counsel before the District Forum, the appellant filed review application in the District Forum on the ground that the report of the Local Commissioner was not discussed in the impugned order and the review application has been dismissed on 25.5.2005. (3) That the appellants were under the impression that the limitation for filing the appeal will start from the order dated 25.5.2005. The appellant applied for certified copy of the order dated 25.5.2005 on 7.6.2005 and received the same on the same very day. Due to wrong impression that limitation will start from 25.5.2005 i.e., the order in review application, the appellants contacted the undersigned Counsel on 23.6.2005 for filing the present appeal. Thus, a delay of 138 days has occurred in filing the present appeal. (4) That the delay in filing the appeal is not intentional but due to the unavoidable circumstances explained above."

IT has been expressly provided in Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) that any person aggrieved by an order made by the District Forum, may prefer an appeal against such order to the State Commission within a period of thirty days from the date of the order, in such form and manner as it is prescribed. Proviso to the section permits the State Commission to entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of thirty days if it is satisfied that there is sufficient cause for not filing it within that period. IT stands well settled that while dealing with the prayer for condonation of delay, the Court/Tribunal have to adopt a liberal approach so as to advance substantial cause of justice when no negligence nor inaction nor want of bona fide is imputable to the appellant. And at the same time what circumstances would constitute ''sufficient cause'' so as to condone the delay in filing the appeal would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Adverting to the facts and circumstances of the present case, admittedly the complaint filed by the complainants was dismissed vide order dated 6.1.2005 and copy of the same was received by him on 12.1.2005. Thereafter, instead of filing the appeal, the complainants moved a Misc. Application No. 2 of 2005 on 4.2.2005 seeking review of the order dated 6.1.2005. It was rejected on 25.5.2005. The complainants applied for certified copy of the said order on 7.6.2005 which was received on the same day. Submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that due to the wrong advice of the Counsel, who had put in appearance before the District Forum, the complainants had filed the review application before the District Forum instead of filing the appeal and that circumstance should be construed "sufficient cause" to condone the delay. No affidavit of the Counsel, who was representing the complainants before the District Forum, has been placed on file so as to explain circumstances, which had impelled him to file review application on the ground that report of the Local Commissioner has not been considered while deciding the complaint. As the complaint was decided on merits, the District Forum has no power for review under the Act. Therefore, the delay occurred because the complainants pursued legal proceedings which was not required under the law to be filed and for that reason time spent for the purpose of computing period of limitation cannot be condoned. For the aforesaid reasons, we find no merit in the application and consequently dismissed the application as well as the appeal. Appeal dismissed.