| CITATION | 2015 SCC NCDRC 919 |
| DATE OF JUDGEMENT | July 1, 2015 |
| COURT | National Consumer Disputes Redressal |
| APPELLANT | Jalandhar Improvement Trust and ors |
| RESPONDENT | Munish Dev Sharma |
| BENCH | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA, HON’BLE MR. SURESH CHANDRA |
INTRODUCTION
The current case refers to the commercial sale of plots where the Jalandhar Improvement Trust has been fined Rs five lakh by NCDRC for manipulating the legal system and submitting baseless appeals to multiple consumer forums in an attempt to conceal its incompetence and mistake. Equity requires that such dishonest litigants be dealt with harshly because their sole goal is to deny the other party the benefits of the ruling. NCDRC noted. Before this, in 2011, the Jalandhar Improvement Trust created a “Development Scheme” for the distribution of residential plots in Jalandhar’s Surya Enclave Extension. The appellants gave the respondents specific plot allocation letters in exchange for a sizable payment. But for more than three years, the appellants did not give the respondents ownership of the lands.
FACTS OF THE CASE
- The appellants formulated a development plan encompassing 94.97 acres of land in 2011 to allocate residential plots in Surya Enclave Extension, Jalandhar. Bookings for this plan started on August 8, 2011.
- The bookings for this plan started on August 8, 2011. The public was encouraged to submit applications by the appellants. Additionally, respondents filed for 200 square yard residential plots, with a proposed cost of 17,000/-per square yard. Plot Nos. 379-D and 305-D were assigned to the respondents, respectively, as per the allotment letters dated December 26, 2011, and December 23, 2011.
- The terms and conditions of the allotment letter stipulated that the full payment of ₹30,69,450/-per person was to be made within 30 days of the day the letter was issued, or in the amounts specified in the letter in instalments with interest. In addition, under the terms and conditions.
- It is also mentioned that in July 2013, the responders paid the locations a personal visit. They observed that there is currently no plot demarcation or indication of construction at the location. After that, the respondents went to the appellant’s office and discovered that there was an ongoing disagreement between the appellant and the owners.
- Therefore, before collecting money from the consumers for the allotment of residential plots to them, the appellants failed to ensure that the land they had acquired for the scheme in question was free of encumbrances. This demonstrated the appellants’ egregious negligence and performance deficiencies.
- Respondents have incurred significant losses as a result of the sum they placed with the appellants being struck. The appellants are neither developing the disputed property, nor are they returning the stated sum plus interest. As a result, on 4.7.2013, respondents sent demand letters to the appellants requesting that they return the money they had placed with them plus interest. However, no one replied. Apparently, the responders submitted consumer complaints and requested the following remedies.
ISSUES
- Whether the applleant’s appeal shall stand or can be dismissed?
CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT
- The appellants contended that the Following receipt of the copy of the contested order, Appellant-Trust reviewed it on a number of fronts. There has been a 25-day delay in that procedure. The reason for the delay in filing these appeals is genuine rather than deliberate or willful. As a result, given established law, delays should be allowed as they won’t harm the other party.
- The appellants’ legal position is based on the fact that different landowners contested the acquisition of land for the aforementioned programme in several writ cases filed with the Punjab and Haryana High Court, leading to a stay. Because of this, the appellants were unable to transfer ownership of the plots. Regarding this, the appellants have filed a copy of the order dated 8.3.2011, which was issued in Civil Writ Petition No. 3559 of 2011 by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, on file.
- The appellant argued that by denying it a chance to be heard in the case, the State Commission and the District Forum had violated its right to natural justice. JIT contended that it was unable to appear and make its case because it was not supplied with a copy of the complaint.
- The appellant argued that because the complaint’s subject matter fell outside of their jurisdiction, the State Commission and the District Forum lacked the authority to consider it. The appellant contended that since the complaint concerned a housing society—a private organization—it fell under the purview of civil courts rather than consumer forums.
- The appellant argued that the complainant did not have a basis for bringing a claim under the CPA because there was no financial loss or damage to his person or property as a result of any flaw in the products or services that JIT had supplied. The appellant contended that the complainant’s complaints, which were centred on inconveniences brought on by subpar infrastructure and maintenance, did not constitute a claim under the CPA.
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS
- Respondents to the request for a delayed pardon have said that the appellants’ approach is quite informal. There is no convincing argument offered to support the wait. There is a well-established rule that every day’s delay must be justified. In this instance, no justification has been provided. The appellants’ actions are not honourable. Appellants floated the plan notwithstanding the High Court’s stay order, acting with malice in their hearts. The learned counsel representing the respondents has cited rulings from both this Commission and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority -IV (2006) CPJ 63 (SC) as justification.
- The respondents contended that The appellants were aware that the land in question was the subject of litigation when the scheme in question was proposed. Despite this, the appellants continued to flout the plan and took money from the respondents. There is no plot demarcation or indication of development at the location as of yet. The aforementioned land is still being utilised for farming. The appellants made the offer of an alternate plot to mislead this Commission and evade their need to pay the sum specified in the contested order.
- In the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), the respondent disputed the complaint’s maintainability, arguing that it was not a consumer dispute as defined by Section 2(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986. The respondent contended that the Trust could not be classified as a “service provider” under the Act since it was not involved in any trade, commerce, or service.
- The defendant contended and denied any service deficiencies and said that it had fulfilled its legal responsibilities under the Jalandhar Improvement Trust Act, 1976. The respondent contended that it had carried out its development activities by due procedure and had sent out all required notices.
- The respondent contended Concerning the maintainability of some of the relief requested by the complaint, such as a plea for an injunction to stop the Trust from engaging in additional development efforts, . The respondent contended that other legal remedies were the only avenues for obtaining such remedy, as per consumer legislation.
JUDGEMENT
- The court in its judgement held that there is no question that the individual or people in question had a thorough understanding of the matters at hand, including the statute of limitations for bringing up the case by submitting a special leave petition to this court. They are unable to argue that they have a different statute of limitations from the time the Department was staffed by qualified individuals who were accustomed to judicial procedures. In the absence of a plausible and acceptable explanation, we are posing a question why the delay is to be condoned mechanically merely because the Government or a wing of the Government is a party before us.
- The court also contended that We believe that now is the appropriate time to notify all government agencies and instrumentalities that, absent a legitimate attempt and a reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay, the standard explanation—that the file was held up for months or years because of a significant amount of procedural red tape—no longer needs to be accepted. The government departments have an extra responsibility to make sure that they carry out their responsibilities with dedication and care. Delay forgiveness is an exception, and government agencies shouldn’t count on it as a benefit. Due to the appeals’ delay, they are rejected and fail. No hierarchy regarding expenses.
- In violation of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) determined that the JIT had neglected to furnish the complainant with a site. The Commission noted that the JIT had not followed the correct procedure for allotment and had unjustly denied the complainant’s application for a site. The Commission ordered the JIT to give the complainant a site within four months of the order’s date and to compensate him for the harassment and emotional distress he had experienced with Rs. 50,000.
- The Commission also chastised the JIT for its opaque site allocation procedure and instructed it to modify its plan in order to guarantee that sites are distributed fairly and openly to all qualified applicants. The Commission also ordered the JIT to regularly update its website with information on sites that are available, as well as to list all eligible applications and the waiting periods associated with them.
ANALYSIS
The reason behind this judgement was that the Honourable Supreme Court held in Anshul Aggarwal that the Court must consider the special period of limitation prescribed by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters. If the Court entertains appeals and revisions that are significantly delayed, the goal of expeditious adjudication of consumer disputes will be defeated. Therefore, it is abundantly evident from the aforementioned order that there was a “Status quo regarding possession” as of 8.3.2011. Nonetheless, the appellants issued allotment letters for the disputed plots on December 26 and December 23, 2011, even though they were well aware of the High Court’s order above. The aforementioned facts so amply demonstrate that the Appellant-Trust was fully aware of the existence of a barrier to the allotment of the plots in question at the time the allotment letters for those plots were issued. Nevertheless, Appellant-Trust had assigned the respondents the disputed plots, even though it was not able to do so. In this sense, the appellants have deceived the public.
REFERENCES
SUBMITTED BY JASLEEN KAUR BAHRI
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.
