Allowed

M/s.Anantha Madhava Read Estates and constructions, v. K.v.Surya Rao

Telangana HC28 Mar 2012WP/34165/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a writ petition challenging the dismissal of a revision petition by the State Consumer Commission. The core dispute involved the condonation of a nearly nine-year delay in filing a consumer complaint regarding an unregistered plot, where the respondent alleged false assurances were received from the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition and the Writ Memorial were dismissed.

M/s.Anantha Madhava Read Estates and constructions, Vs… — Consumer Protection | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND

¶2

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY

¶3

WRIT PETITION No.34165 OF 2011

¶4

28.03.2012

¶5

Between:

¶6

M/s.Anantha Madhava Real Estates & Constructions, Rep. by its Managing Partner Smt P.Krishna Kumari

¶7

Petitioner

¶8

And

¶9

K.V.Surya Rao And another.

¶10

... Respondents

¶11

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY

¶12

WRIT PETITION No.34165 OF 2011

¶13

ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao)

¶14

The writ petition is filed against the order dated 29.11.2011 in R.P.No.40 of 2011 passed by the A.P.State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (hereafter, the State Commission) in exercising powers under Section 17(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the Act, for brevity). By impugned order, the State Commission dismissed the petitioner’s revision petition filed against the order dated 28.06.2011 in I.A.No.485 of 2010 in S.R.No.11219-C/10 passed by the District Consumer Forum-I, Visakhapatnam.

¶15

The short fact of the matter is that the first respondent instituted consumer case for a direction to the petitioner to register plot or refund an amount of Rs.83,370/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from 07.06.2000, to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/and for costs in a sum of Rs.5,000/-. The case of the first respondent is that he joined ‘Mithila Nagar Layout Scheme’ floated by the petitioner and paid all the monthly instalments for a plot admeasuring 267 square yards and in spite of the same, the plot was not registered in his favour. As per Section 24-A of the Act, District Forum is barred from admitting the consumer complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date of which the cause of action arose. Nonetheless, if the complainant satisfies the

¶16

District Forum that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within the period of limitation, a complaint can be entertained. Therefore, the first respondent filed I.A.No.485 of 2010 to condone the delay of eight years six months and ten days. In the affidavit accompanying the said application, he pleaded that due to false assurances given by the opposite party, he could not approach the District Forum. The petitioner opposed the application by filing verified counter affidavit denying various allegations made by the first respondent in his consumer case. On considering the rival contentions, the District Forum allowed the application to condone the delay by an order dated 28.06.2011. When petitioner, as noticed in the introductory paragraph, was unsuccessful, a revision was filed under Section 17(1)(b) of the Act.

¶17

The counsel for the petitioner would submit that the District Forum and the State Commission erred in not considering the question of limitation keeping in view the parameters in relation to “sufficient cause”. He relies on M/s.Kerala Agro Machinery Corporation Limited v Bijoy Kumar Ro y^[1] and Balwant Singh v Jagdish Sing h^[2] . In Balwant Singh, the Supreme Court while reiterating that the term ‘sufficient cause’ has to receive liberal construction held that “it means the presence of legal and adequate reasons and sufficient cause should be such as it would persuade the Court, in exercise of its judicial discretion, to treat the delay as an excusable one” (para 35 of SCC). Therefore, whatever be the delay, while considering the application for condonation of delay, the Court or the Judicial Forum or the Tribunal must address itself whether the cause shown is sufficient enough in all respects to persuade the Court to accept it as reasonable.

¶18

In the case on hand, the first respondent took a specific plea in the affidavit accompanying I.A.No.485 of 2010 that he believed false assurances given by the petitioner. Though the petitioner filed five page verified counter, there is not even a whisper denying the said allegation. The entire counter elaborately adverts to the business problems faced by its sister concern and the seizure of records by the Official Liquidator. When the first respondent alleged that he could not approach the District Forum believing the false assurances, there ought to be specific denial. In the absence of any specific denial, we do not think the District Forum and State Commission committed any error requiring interference.

¶19

The decision in Kerala Agro shows that the District Forum and the State Commission allowed the complaint of the consumer with regard to the defective power tiller supplied by the appellant therein and before the Supreme Court a question was raised that the complaint was made beyond the period of limitation. The Supreme Court, therefore, having found that the question of limitation was not considered at any stage, allowed the appeal holding that the claim by the complainant was made beyond the period of limitation. In our considered opinion, the decision has no application to the facts on hand. As we have seen the allegation of the second respondent was not even denied and therefore, the submission is misconceived.

¶20

The writ petition, as also the W.P.M.P., shall stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶21

_______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J)

¶22

________________________________ (G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J)

¶23

28.03.2012 pln

¶24

[1] AIR 2002 SC 1210

¶25

[2] (2010) 8 SCC 685

M/s.Anantha Madhava Read Estates and constructions, v. K.v.Surya Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Anantha Madhava Read Estates and constructions, v. K.v.Surya Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of a.P., rep.by Tahsildar, Vs M/s.Sree Panchamurty Co-op House Building Society Ltd.

Buchipudi Naveen Kumar Reddy Vs The State Bank of Hyderabad

Syed Sakeena Begum Vs The Authorized Officer

M/s. Lalwani Agricultural and Dairy Farm, rep. by is Vs Akash Enclave Residents Welfare Association, rep. by its

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, Vs A.P. State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission

M/s. Midhuna Chit Funds Ltd., Vs The Registrar