NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
REVISION PETITION NO. 257 OF 2009
(From the order dated 4.11.2008 in RBT No.430 of 2008 in Appeal No.3208 of 2001
of the State Commission, Chandigarh UT)
Sh. Dina Nath
Aged 80 years
(Senior Citizen)
S/o Sh. Dhannu Ram,
R/o 102-A, DDA Flats,
Gulabi Bagh,
Delhi – 110 007. …Petitioner
Vs.
1. Yamunanagar Improvement Trust
Through its Chairman,
Yamuna Nagar, Haryana
2. Municipal Committee
Through its President
Yamuna Nagar, Haryana ...Respondent
BEFORE:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner : In person
For the Respondent : Mr. Sanjay Singh, Advocate with
Mr. Jagnarayan Kaushik, SDM, Jagadhri &
Chairman of Respondent no.1 Trust
Pronounced on: 7th December, 2012
ORDER
PER MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER
By way of the present revision petition filed by the petitioner (who is more than 80 years old) has challenged order dated 4.11.2008 passed by State Consumer DisputesRedressal Commission, Chandigarh UT (for short ‘State Commission’).
2. Brief facts are that petitioner/complainant was allotted Plot No.103 measuring 160 sq. yards by respondent no.1/O.P. No.1, vide allotment letter No.1470 dated 6.9.73 in SarojniNagar Scheme at Yamuna Nagar. The plot was allotted @ Rs.35/- per sq. yard and the tentative price of the plot was Rs.5,600/-. The final price was subject to actual allotment at site. Subsequently, the allotment of said plot was changed and plot No.59 measuring 200 sq. yard was allotted to the petitioner vide allotment letter No.2184 dated 16.11.73 at the same rate i.e. Rs.35/- per sq. yard, thus, the total cost being Rs.8,750/-. Petitioner paid the earnest money of Rs.500/- on 27.4.73 and the security amount of Rs.450/- was also paid. The firstinstalment of Rs.1,688/- was paid on 27.11.73 and subsequently, 2nd and 3rd instalments were paid on 11.12.74 and 9.1.76. Respondents were to further take the final balance price from the petitioner after handing over possession and calculating the cost of actual measurement of the plot. In this manner, petitioner had already paid respondent no.1, a sum of Rs.7,877/- against the total price of R.8,750/-. The agreement between the petitioner and respondent no.1 was got singed on 4.2.74 and petitioner paid all the charges. The possession of the plot was to be handed over to the petitioner within 30 days of the payment of first instalment but possession of the pot was not handed over. Petitioner served a legal notice upon respondent no.1 and petitioner was asked to get the possession of the plot, vide memo No.263 dated 18.4.74 and get the building plans approved. However, in spite of repeated efforts, no possession of the plot was delivered to the petitioner. Subsequently, respondent no.1 wrote a letter to the petitioner stating that the layout plan of the colony is under approval and the possession will be delivered after the approval is accorded. In March/April, 1995, petitioner came to know that towards end of 1994, the acquisition of the land was set aside by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Consequently, representation was given to allot an alternative plot at the same price but the same was not done. The petitioner who had paid a sum of Rs.7,877/- out of the total price of the plot amounting to Rs.8,750/- had not received the possession of the plot despite his best efforts. Therefore, petitioner filed a complaint praying that respondents be directed to deliver the possession of the plot measuring 250 sq. yards and they be also directed to compensate him regarding increase in the cost of construction, which occurred due to non delivery of the possession and also compensate him for the loss of rent for that period. It further prayed for directions to be given to the respondents to compensate him for mental agony and physical harassment caused.
3. The version of respondents is that the complaint is hopelessly time barred. On merits, it has been stated that the plot could not be delivered to the petitioner since there was no proper development of the area at that time. Thereafter, a dispute arose and stay was granted by the Hon’ble High Court. As per respondents, neither the possession could be delivered nor the amount was refunded to the petitioner because respondent no.1 was not in a position to refund the same. Subsequently, petitioner was informed that the case has been lost by respondent no.1 and furthermore there was no alternative plot and therefore, petitioner was asked to get the refund of money. Thus, there is no deficiency on the part of respondents.
4. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Yamuna Nagar (for short, ‘District Forum’) vide order dated 25.7.2001, allowed the complaint and passed the following direction;
“We therefore, direct the respondents to allot an alternative plot at Yamuna Nagar to the complainant and also to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- due to the escalation in construction charges, cost of materials and also Rs.2,000/- on account of litigation charges within one month from the date of this order, otherwise, penal action under section 27 of the Act will be initiated against the respondents.”
5. Aggrieved by the order of District Forum, both parties filed separate appeal before the State Commission. Appeal No.3766 of 2001 filed by petitioner was for enhancement, whereas Appeal No.3208 of 2001, filed by respondents was for dismissal of the complaint.
6. Vide impugned order, State Commission partly allowed the appeal of respondents and dismissed the appeal of petitioner for enhancement observing as under;
“In view of the foregoing discussion, Appeal No.3208 of 2001 (R.B.T. No.430 of 2008) is partly allowed, the impugned order is set aside and OPs are directed to refund the amount paid by the complainant alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of deposit till actual payment. OPs are also directed to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation. They are further directed to comply with the directions within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. Appeal No.3766 of 2001 (R.B.T. No.986 of 2008) as well as the complaint are disposed of in the aforesaid terms.”
7. This is how the matter has reached before this Commission.
8. Petitioner himself has argued it case and has also filed written arguments, whereas Shri Sanjay Singh, Advocate on behalf of the respondents has argued the matter.
9. It is an admitted fact that, vide allotment letter dated 16.1.1973, petitioner was allotted Plot No.59 measuring 250 sq. yard, instead of Plot no.103 at the tentative cost at Rs.35/- per sq. yard and on given terms and interest. Further, Agreement for Sale dated 4.2.1974, was also executed between the parties with regard to the above noted plot. Respondent, vide its letter dated 18.4.1974 had asked the petitioner to take possession and present the building plan so that construction can be started. Thereafter, vide its letter dated 31.3.1975, respondent informed the petitioner that plot in Phase-1 of Sarojini Colony had been demarcated and same can be inspected and petitioner was asked to take physical possession on 13.4.1975. Thereafter, respondent informed petitioner, vide letter dated 1.5.1979 that the lay out plan of Sarojini Colony has been sent for permission for important changes and acceptance of District Town Planner and possession will be handed over after receiving the same. It appears that thereafter till date, possession of the pot in question has not been handed over to the petitioner.
10 Since, possession of the plot was not handed over to the petitioner, he filed a complaint before the District Forum which was allowed in his favour. However, State Commission modified the order of the District Forum on the ground that since possession of the plot in question could not be handed over to the petitioner due to the litigation pending in the High Court, the order passed by District Forum with regard to allotment of plot was set aside by the State Commission.
11. As per record of the present revision petition, respondent has not filed the copy of the petition as well as order passed by the High court.
12. Be that as it may, at the time of admission of the present petition, this Commission passed the following order;
“Dated the 20th day of February, 2009
ORDER
Learned counsel for petitioner seeks time to file affidavit within a period of four weeks stating that subsequent to the reversion of the land to the owner in compliance with the verdict of the High Court, Yamunanagar Improvement Trust has allotted plots to a large number of applicants disregarding the claim of the petitioner. Prayer granted.
Stand over to 23.3.2009. Sd/
…..…………………………J
PRESIDING MEMBER
Sd/
…..…………………………
MEMBER”
13. Accordingly, petitioner filed his affidavit dated 19.3.2009, stating as under;
“1. That the allottees of the disputed plot were given the alternative plots in lieu of the original allotted plots and thereafter physical possession was also given along with the allotment letter. Some of allotment letters are dt. 8.10.01 and 9.3.02 whose true photocopies are annexed as Annexure A-26 and A-27 and their true English translation are annexed as A-26A and A-27A and the possession letter as A-28.
2. That the opp. parties have wrongly stated that there was no alternative plot available with them.”
14. As per Annexures A-26A and 27A, these are copies of the letter of allotment dated 8.10.2001/9.3.2002, allotted to Shri Ved Prakash Ahuja and Shri Mulakh Raj Malla, respectively, allotting alternative plot to them in Sarojini Colony.
15. Thereafter, on 9.7.2009 this Commission inter alia ordered;
“Though some affidavits were put on record by the Ld. counsel for the petitioner to impress us that similarly situated persons whose lands were reverted back to the original owners in the light of the directions contained in the order of Hon’ble High Court. We are not satisfied with the affidavit put on record for which learned counsel seeks short adjournment to file another affidavit. Fresh affidavit be filed well in advance before the scheduled date with a copy to the learned counsel for the respondent to enable him to go through the affidavit and to do the needful in the matter.”
16. On 4.8.2009, petitioner appeared in person before this Commission and stated that he is not in a position to file the proper affidavit. So, following order was passed on 4.8.2009;
“Petitioner in person and also Ld. Counsel for respondent present. Petitioner states that he is not in a position to file proper affidavit as directed by the Commission as Ld. Counsel has withdrawn from the proceedings and all necessary papers are with him. On our asking as to whether he requires assistance of any other counsel to be appointed by this Commission, he shows reluctance. We on consideration of the affidavit put on record direct Ld. Counsel for respondent to verify from record about allotment of plot these persons under the said Schemes and also to file affidavit alongwith their reply.”
17. Thereafter, respondent filed affidavit dated 25.10.2010 of Shri Devender Kaushik, SDO (Civil), Chairman, Improvement Trust, Yamuna Nagar, Haryana, stating interalia;
“5. That it is most respectfully submitted that in reply to the affidavit dt. 19.03.2009 filed by the petitioner regarding alternate allotment of the plot it is submitted that the respondent-Improvement Trust has allotted the alternative plot to the concerned allottee subject to the terms and conditions of re-allotment letter and enhancement costs.”
18. As per above affidavit of the respondent, when other allottees have been allotted alternative plots then why respondent did not allot an alternative plot to the petitioner, who as per respondent’s own case initially had been allotted a specified plot in the year 1973. Respondent cannot discriminate petitioner’s case with other allottees. Hence, the order passed by the State Commission cannot be sustained under the law and same is hereby set aside. Order passed by the District Forum stands restored.
19. Respondents are directed to allot an alternative plot to the petitioner in terms of order dated 25.7.2001 passed by the District Forum , on the same terms and conditions on which the initial plot was allotted , vide allotment letter dated 16.11.1973 and as per agreement dated 4.2.1974 executed between the parties. The alternative plot should be allotted to the petitioner within three months from today, failing which District Forum shall initiate proceedings under Section 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the respondent.
20. Now the question which arise for consideration is as to how much costs should be imposed upon the respondent for causing harassment to the petitioner for over three decades.
21. It is a well-known fact that Courts across the country are saddled with large number of cases. Public Sector Undertakings indulgences further burden them. Time and again, Courts have been expressing their displeasure at the Government/Public Sector Undertakings compulsive litigation habit but a solution to this alarming trend is a distant dream. The judiciary is now imposing costs upon Government/Public Sector Undertaking not only when it pursue cases which can be avoided but also when it forces the public to do so.
22. Public Sector Undertakings spent more money on contesting cases than the amount they might have to pay to the claimant. In addition thereto, precious time, effort and other resources go down the drain in vain. Public Sector Undertakings are possibly an apt example of being penny wise, pound-foolish. Rise in frivolous litigation is also due to the fact that Public Sector Undertakings though having large number of legal personnel under their employment, do not examine the cases properly and force poor litigants to approach the Court.
23. The Apex Court in Bikaner Urban Improvement Trust Vs. Mohan Lal 2010 CTJ 121 (Supreme Court) (CP) has made significant observations which have material bearing, namely,
“4. It is a matter of concern that such frivolous and unjust litigation by Governments and statutory authorities are on the increase. Statutory Authorities exist to discharge statutory functions in public interest. They should be responsible litigants. They cannot raise frivolous and unjust objections, nor act in a callous and highhanded manner. They cannot behave like some private litigants with profiteering motives. Nor can they resort to unjust enrichment. They are expected to show remorse or regret when their officers act negligently or in an overbearing manner. When glaring wrong acts by their officers is brought to their notice, for which there is no explanation or excuse, the least that is expected is restitution/restoration to the extent possible with appropriate compensation. Their harsh attitude in regard to genuine grievances of the public and their indulgence in unwarranted litigation requires to the corrected.
5. This Court has repeatedly expressed the view that the Governments and statutory authorities should be model or ideal litigants and should not put forth false, frivolous, vexatious, technical (but unjust) contentions to obstruct the path of justice. We may refer to some of the decisions in this behalf.
5.1 In Dilbagh Rai Jarry V. Union of India, 1973 (3) SCC 554, where this Court extracted with approval, the following statement (from an earlier decision of the Kerala High Court.):
“The State, under our Constitution, undertakes economic activities in a vast and widening public sector and inevitably gets involved in disputes with private individuals. But it must be remembered that the State is no ordinary party trying to win a case against one of its own citizens by hook or by crook; for the State’s interest is to meet honest claims, vindicate a substantial defence and never to score a technical point or overreach a weaker party to avoid a just liability or secure an unfair advantage, simply because legal devices provide such an opportunity. The State is a virtuous litigant and looks with unconcern on immoral forensic successes so that if on the merits the case is weak. Government shows a willingness to settle the dispute regardless of prestige and other lesser motivations, which move private parties to fight in Court. The lay-out on litigation costs and execution time by the State and its agencies is so staggering these days because of the large amount of litigation in which it is involved that a positive and wholesome policy of cutting back on the volume of law suits by the twin methods of not being tempted into forensic showdowns where a reasonable adjustment is feasible and ever offering to extinguish a pending proceeding on just terms, giving the legal mentors of Government some initiative and authority in this behalf. I am not indulging in any judicial homily but only echoing the dynamic national policy on State litigation evolved at a Conference of Law Ministers of India way back in 1957.”
5.2 In Madras Port Trust vs. Hymanshu International by its Proprietor V. Venkatadri (Dead) by L.R.s (1979) 4 SCC, 176, held:
“2. It is high time that Governments and public authorities adopt the practice of not relying upon technical pleas for the purpose of defeating legitimate claims of citizens and do what is fair and just to the citizens. Of course, if a Government or a public authority takes up a technical plea, the Court has to decide it and if the plea is well founded, it has to be upheld by the Court, but what we feel is that such a plea should not ordinarily be taken up by a Government or a public authority, unless of course the claim is not well founded and by reason of delay in filing it, the evidence for the purpose of resisting such a claim has become unavailable.”
5.3 In a three-Judge Bench judgment of Bhag Singh & Ors.v.Union Territory of Chandigarh through LAC, Chandigarh, (1985) 3 SCC 737.
“3. The State Government must do what is fair and just to the citizen and should not, as far as possible, except in cases where tax or revenue is received or recovered without protest or where the State Government would otherwise be irretrievably be prejudiced, take up a technical plea to defeat the legitimate and just claim of the citizen.”
6. Unwarranted litigation by Governments and statutory authorities basically stem from the two general baseless assumptions by their officers. They are:
(i) All claims against the Government/statutory authorities should be viewed as illegal and should be resisted and fought up to the highest Court of the land.
(ii) If taking a decision on an issued could be avoided, then it is prudent not to decide the issue and let the aggrieved party approach the Court and secure a decision.
The reluctance to take decisions, or tendency to challenge all orders against them, is not the policy of the Governments or statutory authorities, but is attributable to some officers who are responsible for taking decisions and/or officers-in-charge of litigation. Their reluctance arises from an instinctive tendency to protect themselves against any future accusations of wrong decision making, or worse, of improper motives for any decision-making. Unless their insecurity and fear is addressed, officers will continue to pass on the responsibility of decision making to Courts and Tribunals. The Central Government is now attempting to deal with this issue by formulating realistic and practical norms for defending cases filed against the Government and for filing appeals and revisions against adverse decisions, thereby, eliminating unnecessary litigation. But, it is not sufficient if the Central Government alone undertakes such an exercise. The State Governments and the statutory authorities, who have more litigations than the Central Government, should also make genuine efforts to eliminate unnecessary litigation. Vexatious and unnecessary litigation have been clogging the wheels of justice, for too long making it difficult for courts and Tribunals to provide easy and speedy access to justice tobonafide and needy litigants.
7. In this case, what is granted by the State Commission is the minimum relief in the facts and circumstances, that is to direct allotment of an alternative plot with a nominal compensation of Rs.5,000/- . But instead of remedying the wrong, by complying with the decision of the Consumer Fora, the Improvement Trust is trying to brazen out its illegal act by contending that the allottee should have protested when it illegally laid the road in his plot. It has persisted with its unreasonable and unjust stand by indulging in unnecessary litigation by approaching the National Commission and then this Court. The Trust should sensitize its officers to serve the public rather than justify their dictatorial acts. It should avoid such an unnecessary litigation.”
24. In Ravinder Kaur Vs. Ashok Kumar, AIR 2004 SC 904, Apex Court observed:
“ Courts of law should be careful enough to see through such diabolical plans of the judgment debtor to deny the decree holders the fruits of the decree obtained by them. These type of errors on the part of the judicial forum only encourage frivolous and cantankerous litigations causing law’s delay and bringing bad name to the judicial system.”
25. Thus, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, present revision petition is allowed with cost of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only). Respondent is directed to deposit the cost by way of demand in the name of petitioner with this Commission, within eight weeks from today. The cost shall be paid to the petitioner only after expiry of period of appeal/revision preferred if any.
26. Meanwhile, respondent shall recover the cost amount from the salaries of the delinquent officers who had been pursuing this meritless and frivolous litigation with the sole aim of wasting the public exchequer. Affidavit giving details of the officials from whose salary the said costs has been recovered, be also filed within eight weeks.
27. List for compliance on 22.2.2013.
…..…………………………J
(V.B. GUPTA)
PRESIDING MEMBER
Sg/
