This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Prem Devi against the order dated 18.10.2016 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi, (in short ‘the State Commission’) passed in FA No.437 of 2016.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/complainant is the only son and legal heir of Smt. Prem Devi who died on 05.10.1998. She was allotted flat No.M &N 243 A, Sarita Vihar, Phase-I, New Delhi under Janta category against NPRS, A/7110 vide registration No.9900, priority no.4285 in draw held on 25.02.87 against payment of Rs.36,500/- vide letter dated 10.03.87. The complainant deposited Rs.13,800/- vide various challans. Required documents were deposited with respondent/opposite party, but possession was not handed over. The complainant prayed for handing over of possession against deposit of balance amount, for compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for causing harassment, mental tension and physical suffering and monetary loss. Respondent took objection that complaint was barred by limitation. On merits it pleaded that the flat was booked by Smt. Prem Devi w/o Om Prakash and not Prem Devi w/o Brij Lal. The lady who booked the flat appeared in VC’s public hearing who ordered lodging of complaint against cheater. Accordingly a complaint was lodged with SHO, PS Kotla Mubarakpur on 11.1.87. Flat No.243A, Sarita vihar had already been allotted to someone in draw held on 29.03.86. The real lady booking the flat was allotted another flat No.212A, Sarita Vihar and demand cum allotment letter was issued to her on 29.12.87. After receipt of payment and documents, possession of said flat was given to the real lady on 09.05.88. On the basis of these objections, the opposite party requested for dismissal of the complaint. The District Forum vide its order dated 08.06.2016 dismissed the complaint of the complainant.
3. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the complainant preferred appeal being FA No.437 of 2016 before the State Commission and the State Commission vide its order dated 18.10.2016 dismissed the appeal.
4. Hence the present revision petition.
5. Heard AR of the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent. AR of the petitioner stated that both the fora below have given wrong finding that allotment was made in the name of Prem Devi wife of Shri Om Prakash and not in the name of the complainant who is Prem Devi wife of Brij Lal. The complainant has deposited the money for the flat and this issue has not been considered by the fora below. Fora below have also erred in holding that the complaint was time barred. As neither the allotment was made nor the money was refunded, it amounted to continuing cause of action. Thus, the complaint was not barred by limitation.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent stated that both the fora below have given concurrent finding that the complainant was not the original allottee and the original allottee was Prem Devi wife of Om Prakash. She had requested for allotment of another flat and she was allotted accordingly by the respondent. The real allottee has already taken the possession in the year 1988. There was no correspondence from 1987 till 2006 by the complainant in the present matter with the respondent. Had the complainant been the real allottee, the complainant should have made the correspondence in respect of giving possession of the flat. The complaint has been filed in the year 2009 by the alleged allottee’s son. The alleged allottee has already expired and till her death she never made any request with the respondent for giving possession. The State Commission has clearly held that the complainant is trying to take advantage of the similar name as that of the real allottee. Thus, there is no merit in the revision petition.
7. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by both the sides and have examined the record. The State Commission has observed the following:-
“The complainant himself mentioned that Smt. Prem Devi w/o Shri Brij Lal died on 05.10.98. Thus from 1987 till 05.10.98 she did not correspond with the OP. It was the present complainant/son of Smt. Prem Devi who sent letter on 25.05.06 which was taken by the District Forum on record and marked as Mark B. Thus, there was no correspondence from 1987 to 2006. The complaint filed on 16.03.09 was hopelessly barred by limitation.”
8. From the above, it is clear that even if the correspondence made by the real allottee of similar name was made in the year 1987 and the same is construed as correspondence by the present complainant, no correspondence was done from 1987 till 1998 when she was alive. After death of Prem Devi wife of Brij Lal, her son started corresponding with the respondent in the year 2006 and then filed a complaint in the year 2009. It is established principle of law that no amount of correspondence can enhance the limitation period. Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Tripura & Ors. Vs. Arabinda Chakraborty & Ors., decided on 21.04.2014 (SC), has held the following:-
“10. In our opinion, the suit was hopelessly barred by law of limitation. Simply by making a representation, when there is no statutory provision or there is no statutory appeal provided, the period of limitation would not get extended. The law does not permit extension of period of limitation by mere filing of a representation. A person may go on making representations for years and in such an event the period of limitation would not commence from the date on which the last representation is decided. ……..”
9. The limitation period has already expired at least in the year 1990. The complaint has been filed after 19 years. Thus, I do not find any fault in the orders of the fora below that the complaint was highly barred by limitation.
10. Even on merit, it is seen that the State Commission has observed the following:-
“The District Forum also found that deposit made by complainant contains her address as KP8, Pitam Pura, Maurya Enclave, Delhi vide letter copy of which is marked ‘C’. Complainant did not make out that she resided at any other place except the address mentioned in the complaint which is 167, Malik Pur, Tagore Garden, Model Town, Delhi. Thus, application for allotment was moved by Prem Devi w/o Om Prakash and not mother of the complainant.”
11. At the time of hearing, the Bench asked the AR of the complainant whether the complainant has copy of the allotment letter or the copy of the first deposit receipt. After the allotment, the AR of the petitioner has stated that as this is an old matter, the allotment letter and the receipt are not available. If the allotment was made in the name of Prem Devi wife of Brij Lal, then the complainant must be having some papers which prove that the allotment was made in her name. As no such documents are filed by the complainant’s mother it gives strength to the finding given by the fora below that the allotment was not made in the name of the complainant’s mother but in the name of Prem Devi wife of Om Prakash.
12. From the above examination, it is clearly brought out that the complaint was highly barred by limitation. Both the fora below have correctly dismissed the complaint on the ground of limitation. Even on merits, the case of the complainant is not proved as the complainant’s mother was never allotted any flat by the respondent and that allotment was in the similar name Prem Devi wife of Om Prakash, but the complainant is trying to take advantage of the similar name. Both the fora below have given concurrent finding on this fact as well and therefore, this Commission cannot reassess the facts in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta vs. United India Insurance Company, 2011 (3) Scale 654 wherein the following has been observed:-
“Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21 (b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
different view that what was taken by the two Forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken, by setting aside the concurrent finding of two fora.” 13. On the basis of the above discussion, I do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order dated 18.10.2016 of the State Commission which calls for any interference from this Commission. Consequently, the revision petition No.504 of 2017 is dismissed.