SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Haryana Urban Development Authority
Vs
B.K. Sood
Civil Appeal No. 6572 of 2005
(Mrs.) Ruma Pal and Dr. A.R.Lakshmanan)
26/10/2005
MRS. RUMA PAL, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. In this appeal an order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission (hereinafter referred to as the "National Commission") is
challenged to the extent that the National Commission had awarded two lacs
compensation which was to be paid by the appellant to the respondent.
3. The appellant held an auction of booth sites plots/building at No.90, Sector
9 at Panchkula on free hold basis in 1986. The respondent bid for one
booth/site plot which was accepted by the appellant. An allotment letter was
issued on 12th January, 1987 to the respondent in which it was mentioned that
the allotted area of the booth/site was 45.37 sq. meters including the side
verandah at a price of Rs.2,53,000/- which could be paid in instalments. After
adjusting the earnest money deposited, the respondent was required to pay the
balance of 25% of the price of the plot within 30 days upon which the
possession of the booth site would be given. The balance amount of the purchase
price of Rs.1,89,750.00 was payable in ten half yearly instalments, the first
of which was payable after the expiry of six months. In terms of the allotment
letter the last instalment was payable on 12th December, 1991. The allotment
letter also mentioned that each instalment would be recoverable together with
interest on the balance price at 10% interest on the remaining amount which
would start to accrue from the date of offer of possession of the said booth.
4. The respondent admittedly did not pay all the instalments. The total amount
paid was Rs.1,45,790/-, leaving outstanding a sum of Rs.2,03,580/- inclusive of
interest calculated upto 12th November, 1991. The appellant issued several
notices of demand to the respondent. According to the appellant, pursuant to
one of the notices, the respondent had appeared on 18th December, 1991 and
promised to pay the outstanding dues by 31st December, 1992. However, no
payment was made. Ultimately the appellant issued a notice on 31st May, 1996 to
the respondent demanding payment.
5. On 6th April, 1997 the respondent filed a complaint before the State
Consumer Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as the "State
Commission") in which the respondent claimed an order directing the
setting aside of the notice of demand dated 31st May, 1996. They also asked for
removal of the "deficiencies" in the booth and for compensation on
account of damage to the extent of Rs.10 lacs for the appellant's alleged gross
failure in discharging their legal duties which had allegedly "caused
extensive losses in terms of business, health, mental peace, family
up-bringing, education of children etc." of the respondent and for an
amount on account of "extreme deficiency of service" on the
appellant's part.
6. The deficiencies alleged in the complaint were as follows:
a) The booth of which possession was given by the appellant measured only 2.75
× 8.25 sq. mts. as against the advertised area of 5.5 × 8.25 sq. mts.
b) Unauthorized bhatties had been kept in the verandah of the neighbouring shop
which had seriously affected the health and business of the respondent.
c) The appellant had unauthorisedly sanctioned a STD/PCO in front of the
respondent's booth due to which the respondent had lost the advantage of having
purchased a corner booth.
7. The appellant filed an affidavit before the State Commission countering the
submissions in the respondent's complaint and stating that the complaint was
barred by time. On the merits it was said that the respondent had been given
possession of 5.5 sq.mts. × 8.25 sq.mts. after which the respondent had
constructed the booth at the corner site. As far as the bhatties were
concerned, it was stated that they had already been removed. In connection with
the allegations regarding the sanction of STD/PCO booth, it was stated that the
same had been constructed far away from the booth of the respondent. It was
submitted that there was no deficiency in the services and the respondent had
not suffered any damage at all. On the contrary, the respondent had defaulted
in making the payment of the instalments of the purchase price and the
appellant was entitled to recover the same together with interest at 18% p.a.
8. The State Commission accepted the claim of the respondent and directed the
appellant:
"i) to remove the Bhatties belonging to the neighbouring shop-keepers at
present lying in front of site of the booth of the complainant;
ii) Include the side verandah within the total area allotted to the complainant
for the booth site;
iii) To refund to the complainant the proportionate price of the area covered
by the verandah by the HUDA authorities;
iv) To submit (sic) the complainant exclusive use of the verandah for the
complainants use;
v) To remove the STD/PCO booth from the site of the complainants booth;
vi) To pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- by way of compensation for the monetary loss
and the mental agony, harassment suffered by him on accept of deficiency in
service on the part of HUDA;
vii) To revise the accounts by adjusting the payments made by the complainants
so far and re-schedule the instalments, if any still found payable by them; and
viii) Not to raise any demand for further payment till the compliance of the
aforesaid direction is made".
9. On the appeal of the appellant, the National Commission negatived directions
(ii), (iii), (iv), (v), (vii) and (viii) of the State Commission. It was found
that there was no deficiency in the service rendered by the appellant as far as
the area allotted and the construction of the STD/PCO were concerned. It was
found that the side verandah had been included in the total area sold to the
respondent and that the PCO booth had been constructed 21 feet away from the
booth of the respondent. It was held that the respondent was liable to pay the
outstanding instalments of the price to the appellant together with interest as
per the HUDA policy @ 14% p.a. However, it noted that the bhatties had been
removed during the pendency of the appeal before the National Commission and to
that extent it confirmed the States Commission's finding that there was
deficiency on the part of the appellant. As such it directed the payment of
Rs.2 lacs as compensation to the respondent for "causing agony and
hardship and health hazard to the complainant as also their failure to keep the
passage clear which they were obliged to do". The appellant was directed
to rework the amount payable by the respondent and communicate the same to the
respondent which was directed to pay the same within a time frame to the
appellant after adjusting the Rs.2 lacs awarded as compensation.
10. Both the appellant and the respondent filed two separate special leave
petitions from the order of the National Commission. The special leave petition
filed by the respondent was dismissed. Therefore, as far as the findings of the
National Commission against the respondent are concerned, they are concluded
against the respondent. This appeal, on the other hand deserves to be allowed.
11. Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
(referred to as the Act hereafter) expressly cast a duty on the Commission
admitting a complaint, to dismiss a complaint unless the complainant satisfies
the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the
case may be, that the complainant had sufficient cause for not filing the
complaint within the period of two years from the date on which the cause of
action had arisen.
12. The Section debars any fora set up under Act, admitting a complaint unless
the complaint is filed within two years from the date of which the cause of
action has arisen. Neither the National Commission nor the State Commission had
considered the preliminary objections raised by the appellant that the claim of
the respondent was barred by time. According to the complaint filed by the
respondent, the cause of action arose when, according to the respondent,
possession was received of the booth site and it was allegedly found that an
area less than the area advertised had been given. This happened in January,
1987. Furthermore, the bhatties which were alleged to have caused loss and
damage to the respondent, as stated in the complaint, had been installed before
1989 and removed in 1994. The complaint before the State Commission was filed
by the respondent in 1997, ten years after the taking of possession, eight
years after the cause of alleged damage commenced and three years after that
cause ceased. There was not even any prayer by the respondent in his complaint
for condoning the delay.
13. Therefore, the claim of the respondent on the basis of the allegations
contained in the complaint, was clearly barred by limitation as the two year
period prescribed by Section 24A of the Act had expired much before the
complaint was admitted by the State Commission. This finding is sufficient for
allowing the appeal.
14. Moreover, the National Commission proceeded on the incorrect factual basis
that the bhatties had been removed during the pendency of the appeal before it.
The finding was contrary to the records. As we have said, according to the
complaint itself, the offending bhatties had already been removed in 1994 three
years before the complaint was filed by the respondent. Apart from this there
was no basis for the Commission to have awarded to Rs.2 lacs to the respondent
by way of compensation.
15. In the circumstances of the case the appeal is allowed and the decision of
the National Commission in so far as it directed the appellant to pay
compensation to the respondent is set aside. No order as to costs.