ANJALI BAJAJ Vs. THE SARASWATI KUNJ CO-OPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY LTD., THE SECRETARY THE SARASWATI KUNJ CO-OPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY LTD. AND THE INSPECTOR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER herein is the original complainant. He was a member of the respondent cooperative society/OP No. 1 which was to allot developed plot to its members on no profit no loss basis. The respondent society allotted a residential plot bearing No. 237 of 250 sq.yds. in Phase -1 of the respondent society to the petitioner @ Rs. 775/ - per sq.yd. which, as per the allegation in the complaint, was inclusive of external development charges, apart from the cost of share certificate/share amount and initial cost of land. A passbook was issued by the respondent/OP cooperative society to the petitioner for maintaining record of payments made by him to the society. Allegedly, the entire cost of the plot was paid by the petitioner. Though the possession of the plot was to be delivered within two years but it was not handed over and also no sale deed etc. was executed. Subsequently, on account of financial irregularities, the administration of the society was put under the control of respondent No. 3/OP No. 3 by the State Government. As per a press note issued by respondent No. 3, the petitioner submitted his claim before respondent No. 3 in January, 2005 but the respondent No. 3 failed to resolve the dispute/grievance of the complainant. Accordingly, a complaint was filed by the petitioner against the respondents/opposite parties before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gurgaon vide C.C. No. 742 of 2006. The District Forum vide its order dated 9.1.2012 allowed the complaint and held that the complainant was entitled to physical possession of the plot in question. The District Forum, therefore, directed the OP -1 society through its management/the then administrators to intimate the balance cost, if any, of the plot in dispute within 30 days and the same was required to be paid by the complainant within 30 days and thereafter the respondent society was directed to deliver the physical possession after completing all formalities within 3 months. The complainant was also held entitled to get the conveyance deed of the plot in dispute executed and registered on payment of the requisite stamp duty and registration fee. The District Forum further held that in case the opposite party was unable to deliver the physical possession of the plot in dispute, then in the alternative, the complainant would be entitled to a plot of same size at same price in the same area or adjoining to it. However, in case due to some unavoidable circumstances beyond its control, the OP society was unable to allot a plot to the complainant then the complainant would be entitled to refund of his amount of Rs. 1,93,750/ - with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of each deposit till actual realization. In case, however, the physical possession was handed over by the society to the complainant in that case, the complainant would be entitled to interest @ 9% p.a. after two years from initial deposit till the physical possession of the plot. The District Forum also held that since the opposite party had caused mental agony to the complainant since 1996, the complainant was entitled to a compensation of Rs. 20,000/ - besides litigation charges of Rs. 5,000/ -.

(2.) FEELING aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the District Forum, the complainant filed an appeal before the State Commission wherein appellant sought direction against the opposite party to hand over the physical possession of the original allotted plot or some alternative plot, besides compensation, litigation expenses etc. There was, however, delay of 166 days beyond the prescribed period in filing the appeal by the complainant before the State Commission for which he filed an application for condonation of delay. Not feeling satisfied with the explanation given in the application for Condonation of delay of 166 days in filing the appeal, the State Commission vide its impugned order dated 3.7.2012 rejected the application of the complainant for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Consequently, the State Commission vide its impugned order passed in FA No. 739 of 2012 dismissed the appeal as time -barred in limine. It is against this order of the State Commission that the complainant has filed the present revision petition.

(3.) WE are not convinced with the above submissions. On perusal of record, we find that State Commission has dismissed the appeal in liminie because it was barred by limitation. While rejecting the application of petitioner for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, the State Commission has recording the following observations: