2018 (2) TMI 1741 - Commission - Indian Laws

Condonation of delay in filing appeal - sufficient cause present or not? - Held that - The reasons given for the condonation of delay are vague and casual. The day to day reasons have also not been given by the petitioner to justify the condonation of delay of 126 days. The name of the counsel in Delhi and also the date on which he received the order and thereafter approached the counsel have not been mentioned - the appellant has failed to give sufficient cause by giving cogent reasons and justification to condone the inordinate delay of 126 days - the revision petition deserves to be dismissed on limitation alone. Refund of advance payment made by petitioner - Failure of Registration of site - Held that - The petitioner being a member of the Society and also a part of the General Body which meet every September had to be aware of the status of the farming the sites and the problem being faced by the Society with regard to the acquisition of land and difficulties being faced by the Society in the acquisition, consolidation and change in land use of the land from agricultural to non-agricultural. In case she was not willing to wait she could have sought for refund at any stage. Though she became a Member of the Society in 2007 and deposited various amounts soon thereafter she filed the complaint before the District Forum only on 08.01.2014. Hence, we are of the view that having failed to claim the refund earlier she cannot now claim additional compensation. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Failure to provide documents relating to layout or its approval.
2. Non-allotment of site and refund of advance amount.
3. Dispute over payment of interest on deposits.
4. Delay in filing the revision petition.
5. Claim for additional compensation.

Issue 1: Failure to provide documents relating to layout or its approval
The petitioner complained that despite making payments totaling &8377; 7,22,020, the respondent failed to provide any documents related to the layout or its approval. The respondent expressed difficulties in providing the site with an allotment letter, citing problems faced by the society. The petitioner issued a legal notice for registration of the site or refund of the advance amount, but received no response. The petitioner sought specific relief, including allotment and registration of a site, compensation, or refund of the entire amount paid.

Issue 2: Non-allotment of site and refund of advance amount
The respondents admitted that the petitioner applied for a site and made payments towards allotment. They claimed progress in housing projects, citing the appointment of a developer for land acquisition and approvals. The respondents contended that there was no mala fide intention and offered to refund the amount if the petitioner was unwilling to accept the allotment. The District Forum ordered the respondents to refund the amount with interest at 15% per annum.

Issue 3: Dispute over payment of interest on deposits
The State Commission partially allowed the complaint, modifying the interest rate and directing the refund of the principal amount with interest at 15% per annum from the date of the complaint. The respondents deposited the principal amount and sought modification of the interest rate, which was granted by the State Commission.

Issue 4: Delay in filing the revision petition
The revision petition was filed with a delay of 126 days. The petitioner cited reasons for the delay, including lack of awareness about the legal process and time lost in contacting advocates. However, the reasons provided were deemed vague and casual by the Commission. The Commission referred to legal precedents emphasizing the need for diligence and timely action in consumer protection matters.

Issue 5: Claim for additional compensation
The Commission found that the petitioner, being a member of the society, should have been aware of the status of site allotment and the challenges faced by the society in land acquisition. The petitioner's delay in seeking a refund precluded the claim for additional compensation. The Commission dismissed the revision petition, stating that no jurisdictional error or material irregularity was found in the impugned order, thereby denying the claim for additional compensation.