T. Kavita Reddy Vs. Urban Development Authority - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1113391
CourtAndhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided OnJan-25-2000
Case NumberF.A. I.A. No. 95 of 2000
JudgeS. PARVATHA RAO, PRESIDENT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. MAMATA LAKSHMANNA, MEMBER
AppellantT. Kavita Reddy
RespondentUrban Development Authority
Excerpt:
consumer protection act, 1986 - section 2(1)(g) - comparative citations: 2000 (1) cpc 640, 2001 (1) cpj 536s. parvatha rao, president: 1. we do not find any ground for condoning the delay of 183 days/in presenting the appeal fa sr no. 1216 of 1999 by the unsuccessful complainant questioning the order of the visakhapatnam district forum in o.p. no. 56 of 1995 dated 7.10.1998 dismissing her complaint. the opposite party in the o.p. is the respondent in fa ia no. 95 of 2000 and fa sr no. 1216 of 1999. 2. the order of the district forum was dispatched on 15.10.1998. the appeal was presented on 26.5.1999. the petitioner/appellant in her affidavit dated 29.11.1999 has not stated when she received the copy of the order. she only sought for condonation of delay without making out a sufficient cause. she stated as follows in that affidavit: “i submit that on 7.10.1998 the district forum, visakhapatnam dismissed my complaint in o.p. no. 56 of 1995. the order copy was dispatched on 15.10.1998. at the time of filing of the complaint, i was stayed at madras and doing bds course. from august, 1998 i was staying at   thondamnadu, srikalahasthi mandal, chittoor district at the native place of my husband and i was carrying. because of communication gap i could not contact my counsel at visakhapatnam and my counsel was also not aware of my thondamnadu address. through my father sri t. suryanarayana reddy who was staying at visakhapatnam, enquired about the result of the case and requested our advocate mr. d. ramesh, advocate at visakhapatnam and to take necessary action for preferring the appeal before the honble commission. he sent all the papers to mr. v. gourisankara rao, advocate, hyderabad for filing the appeal. on 26.5.1999 mr. v. gourisankara rao filed the appeal. thus there is a delay of 183 days in filing the appeal.” 3. it is obvious that the copy of the order could be sent only to the address given by her in the o.p. it is not her case that the copy of the order was not sent to her madras address and was not received there by anyone. under the circumstances we do not find that sufficient cause is made out for condoning the delay. 4. fa ia no. 95 of 2000 is, therefore, dismissed and consequently the appeal fa sr no. 1216 of 1999 is rejected. 5. we have carefully gone through the order of the district forum in o.p. no. 56 of 1995. we find that it is not vitiated by any illegality or material irregularity warranting interference in exercise of our revisional powers under section 17(b) of the consumer protection act, 1986. we may also state that there is no merit in the appeal at all. the case of the complainant was that her father, who was an mla and also the former chairman of the respondent, i.e. visakhapatnam urban development authority during 1990, applied for allotment of a plot under special quota for mlas, to the respondent and that the respondent by its order dated 10.10.1991 allotted a plot to an extent of 400 sq. yards for a total consideration of rs. 70,460/- which was payable on or before 10.11.1991 and that thereafter her father requested the respondent to allot the plot in the name of the complainant. thereafter by letter dated 14.10.1991 the respondent  intimated that they had no objection for allotment of plot in the name of the complainant and that the complainant paid the consideration of rs. 70,460/- on 18.10.1991. finding that the plot was not being registered in her name, she approached the visakhapatnam district forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. 6. in its detailed counter the respondent stated that the complainants father suppressed the fact that he was already allotted a plot hig- 6 in ocean view layout of an extent of 474 sq. yards in the year 1980 and subsequently further additional extent of 486 sq. yards was allotted to him for which also a registered sale deed was executed in his name, and that he had already constructed a building in those plots, and that the rules of allotment did not permit him yet another allotment of plot and that, therefore, the allotment of plot under order dated 10.10.1991 was cancelled and that the sum of rs. 70,460/- paid by the complainant was returned to her together with interest by way of a cheque, and that the complainant had sent back the cheque to the respondent and started correspondence for execution of the sale deed in respect of the plot allotment of which was already cancelled. it was also contended for the respondent that no privity of contract existed between the complainant and the respondent because she never applied for any plot and it was only her father that applied and that the plot which was allotted to him under the order dated 10.10.1991 was sought by him to be registered in his daughters name. 7. the district forum in its order dated 7.10.1998, relying upon a decision of the supreme court and finding that the cancellation of allotment could not be faulted, held that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. we fully agree with the order of the district forum. therefore, we do not find any merit whatsoever in the appeal. we may observe that this appeal ought not have been preferred in view of the facts of the case because earlier allotment of plot of an extent of 474 sq. yards in 1980 and also allotment of an additional extent of 486 sq. yards was not disputed by the complainant or her father. appeal dismissed.
Judgment:

S. Parvatha Rao, President:

1. We do not find any ground for condoning the delay of 183 days/in presenting the appeal FA SR No. 1216 of 1999 by the unsuccessful complainant questioning the order of the Visakhapatnam District Forum in O.P. No. 56 of 1995 dated 7.10.1998 dismissing her complaint. The opposite party in the O.P. is the respondent in FA IA No. 95 of 2000 and FA SR No. 1216 of 1999.

2. The order of the District Forum was dispatched on 15.10.1998. The appeal was presented on 26.5.1999. The petitioner/appellant in her affidavit dated 29.11.1999 has not stated when she received the copy of the order. She only sought for condonation of delay without making out a sufficient cause. She stated as follows in that affidavit:

“I submit that on 7.10.1998 the District Forum, Visakhapatnam dismissed my complaint in O.P. No. 56 of 1995. The order copy was dispatched on 15.10.1998. At the time of filing of the complaint, I was stayed at Madras and doing BDS course. From August, 1998 I was staying at   Thondamnadu, Srikalahasthi Mandal, Chittoor District at the native place of my husband and I was carrying. Because of communication gap I could not contact my Counsel at Visakhapatnam and my Counsel was also not aware of my Thondamnadu address. Through my father Sri T. Suryanarayana Reddy who was staying at Visakhapatnam, enquired about the result of the case and requested our Advocate Mr. D. Ramesh, Advocate at Visakhapatnam and to take necessary action for preferring the appeal before the Honble Commission. He sent all the papers to Mr. V. Gourisankara Rao, Advocate, Hyderabad for filing the appeal. On 26.5.1999 Mr. V. Gourisankara Rao filed the appeal. Thus there is a delay of 183 days in filing the appeal.”

3. It is obvious that the copy of the order could be sent only to the address given by her in the O.P. It is not her case that the copy of the order was not sent to her Madras address and was not received there by anyone. Under the circumstances we do not find that sufficient cause is made out for condoning the delay.

4. FA IA No. 95 of 2000 is, therefore, dismissed and consequently the appeal FA SR No. 1216 of 1999 is rejected.

5. We have carefully gone through the order of the District Forum in O.P. No. 56 of 1995. We find that it is not vitiated by any illegality or material irregularity warranting interference in exercise of our revisional powers under Section 17(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. We may also state that there is no merit in the appeal at all. The case of the complainant was that her father, who was an MLA and also the former Chairman of the respondent, i.e. Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority during 1990, applied for allotment of a plot under special quota for MLAs, to the respondent and that the respondent by its order dated 10.10.1991 allotted a plot to an extent of 400 sq. yards for a total consideration of Rs. 70,460/- which was payable on or before 10.11.1991 and that thereafter her father requested the respondent to allot the plot in the name of the complainant. Thereafter by letter dated 14.10.1991 the respondent  intimated that they had no objection for allotment of plot in the name of the complainant and that the complainant paid the consideration of Rs. 70,460/- on 18.10.1991. Finding that the plot was not being registered in her name, she approached the Visakhapatnam District Forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.

6. In its detailed counter the respondent stated that the complainants father suppressed the fact that he was already allotted a plot HIG- 6 in Ocean View layout of an extent of 474 sq. yards in the year 1980 and subsequently further additional extent of 486 sq. yards was allotted to him for which also a registered sale deed was executed in his name, and that he had already constructed a building in those plots, and that the rules of allotment did not permit him yet another allotment of plot and that, therefore, the allotment of plot under order dated 10.10.1991 was cancelled and that the sum of Rs. 70,460/- paid by the complainant was returned to her together with interest by way of a cheque, and that the complainant had sent back the cheque to the respondent and started correspondence for execution of the sale deed in respect of the plot allotment of which was already cancelled. It was also contended for the respondent that no privity of contract existed between the complainant and the respondent because she never applied for any plot and it was only her father that applied and that the plot which was allotted to him under the order dated 10.10.1991 was sought by him to be registered in his daughters name.

7. The District Forum in its order dated 7.10.1998, relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court and finding that the cancellation of allotment could not be faulted, held that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. We fully agree with the order of the District Forum. Therefore, we do not find any merit whatsoever in the appeal. We may observe that this appeal ought not have been preferred in view of the facts of the case because earlier allotment of plot of an extent of 474 sq. yards in 1980 and also allotment of an additional extent of 486 sq. yards was not disputed by the complainant or her father.

Appeal dismissed.