Full Judgment Text
1
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6017 OF 2012
(ARISING OUT OF SLP(C) NO.23892 OF 2012)
KANPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY … APPELLANT
THR. VICE CHAIRMAN
VERUS
SHEO PRAKASH GUPTA & ANR. … RESPONDENTS
O R D E R
Leave granted.
2. Learned counsel for both the sides agree that the appeal
may be disposed of at this stage.
JUDGMENT
3. This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated
th
29 May, 2012 passed by the National Consumers Disputes
Redressal Commission, New Delhi (for short ‘the National
Commission’)in First Appeal No.42 of 2012, whereby the
appeal filed by the appellant-Kanpur Development Authority
(hereinafter referred to as ‘Authority’) against the order of the
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar
Page 1
2
Pradesh, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State
th
Commission’)dated 14 October, 2011 was dismissed.
4. According to the appellant-Authority vide its office order
st
dated 31 October, 1992 it was determined that in the matter
of allotment of any home or plot, if any dispute arises and it
does not remain possible to complete the registration
proceedings or to handover the possession in lieu thereof, an
alternate house or plot shall not be offered and the amount
deposited by the allottee shall be returned back to him
alongwith the interest as per the rate of post office saving
account.
5. In response to an advertisement issued by the appellant-
Authority in the year 2005 for sale of various plots by auction
pursuant to the Kakadeo Scheme, the respondents being
interested to purchase one of the plots bearing Plot No.6 in
JUDGMENT
Block M admeasuring 1364.15 sq.mtr., participated in the
auction. The price of the said plot was fixed by the appellant-
Authority at Rs.8,000/- per sq.mtr. with a condition precedent
to deposit Rs.11,00,000/- as registration fee.
st
6. Pursuant to the guidelines dated 31 October, 1992, the
th
respondents filed an affidavit on 18 August, 2005 before the
appellant-Authority, that if in giving the possession of the
allotted plot, any delay is caused in land acquisition or judicial
Page 2
3
processes or due to the non-completion of the contract within
the prescribed time or due to any other unavoidable reason,
then they shall not be having any right to claim damages.
7. As the respondents were successful as the highest
bidders, they were allotted the aforesaid plot vide a letter
th
No.D/605/JointSecretary/ZoneNo.2 /2005-06 dated 20 August,
2005 whereunder the premium of the said plot was fixed at
Rs.11,700/- per sq.mtr. They were informed that the remaining
th
3/4 of the premium was to be paid in four quarterly
installments alongwith 15% of the interest while the amount of
st
the first installment was Rs.32,76,623/-, payable on 1
October, 2005.
8. Earlier, the respondents in their affidavit filed before the
appellant-Authority stated that they were ready to accept all
the terms and conditions in the allotment of the plot.
JUDGMENT
9. Before giving possession of the plot to the respondents,
in a civil proceeding, the Civil Court, Kanpur issued a
temporary injunction. It was immediately conveyed by the
appellant-Authority to the auction purchasers-respondents and
for the said reason the orders of allotments were cancelled by
the appellant-Authority. The respondents thereafter filed a Writ
Petition No.27893 of 2006 before the Allahabad High Court
rd
wherein the High Court by order dated 23 May, 2006 directed
Page 3
4
the appellant-Authority to decide the
representation/application of the respondents within three
months.
10. The case of the appellant-Authority is that in compliance
rd
of the order of the High Court dated 23 May,2006 the
appellant-Authority decided the application of the respondents
and refunded their entire deposited amount of
th
Rs.1,53,62,528/- vide Cheque dated 28 October, 2006 as per
the rules and in absence of any rule or guideline, no damage
was paid.
11. After the receipt of the amount, the respondents filed a
Complaint No.25 of 2007 before the State Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow for the
following reliefs:
“a. A sum of Rs.32,49,174.67p.; on account of
accrued interest @1.5 per mensum on
Rs.1,53,62,528/- from the date of deposit till its
refund alongwith pendent lite and future
interest thereon @1.5% per mensum be
awarded to the petitioners against the opposite
party.
JUDGMENT
b. A sum of Rs.10,00,000/- being damages on
account of breach of contract may also be
awarded to the petitioners against the opposite
party.
c.
A sum of Rs.25,000/- being cost of litigation
incurred by the petitioners in the present case
th
before 4 A.C.M.M. Kanpur Nagar and the
Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
and present petition may also be awarded to the
petitioners against the opposite party.
Page 4
5
d. Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may
deem fit and proper under the circumstances of
the case may also be awarded to the petitioners
against the opposite party.”
12. The State Commission by an ex parte order dated 14th
October, 2011 observed that the appellant-Authority despite
receiving the entire amount did not give the possession of the
disputed land to the complainants and without any reason vide
Cheque dated 28.10.2006 returned the said amount to the
complainants. It was held to be a deficiency in the part of the
appellant-Authority and, therefore, the appellant-Authority was
held to be guilty of adopting unfair trade practices. The
application was allowed with the direction to the appellant-
Authority that, on the amount deposited by the respondents-
complainants till the date of filing of the complaint, the total
interest accrued i.e. Rs.32,49,175/- be paid to the
JUDGMENT
complainants alongwith an interest @ 18% per annum for the
period of the pendency of the complaint till the actual
realisation of the amount. It was also held that the
respondents-complainants are also entitled to receive from the
appellant-Authority, a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards mental
harassment and Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses.
13. Against the aforesaid ex parte order of the State
Commission, the appellant-Authority preferred a First Appeal
Page 5
6
No.42 of 2012 before the National Commission after a delay of
69 days. In paragraph 3 of the appeal the appellant-Authority
made the following statement:
“That the impugned order was passed on
14.10.2011. That thereafter coming to know of the
order, the appellant checked for the records
wherein it was found that no notice has been
received in the matter. Thereafter on 26.11.2011,
the office was directed to trace the record of the
file.”
14. Before the National Commission the very first ground
raised by the appellant-Authority was that the State
Commission did not afford them an opportunity to be heard
and decided the complaint ex-parte. But the National
Commission rejected the aforesaid plea of non-service of
notice with the following observation:
“On the other hand, documents placed on record by
the appellant include a letter from the postal
department which shows that the registered cover
was delivered to the KDA on 21.12.2006. The
impugned order categorically notes that notice had
been issued to the respondent/KDA but no body
had appeared on their behalf. The State
Commission had therefore decided to proceed ex-
parte against the respondent. We, therefore, do not
find any reason to accept this plea of absence of
opportunity before the State Commission.”
JUDGMENT
15. For the very same reason, the ground of delay in
preferring the appeal was not accepted and the appeal was
Page 6
7
dismissed both on the ground of delay as well as on merits and
the order of the State Commission was confirmed.
16. Learned counsel for the appellant-Authority reiterated
the grounds as were taken in the First Appeal and argued that
the State Commission did not afford them an opportunity to be
heard and decided the complaint ex parte. He has further
taken us to the date of filing of the Complaint No.25 of 2007
rd
which was verified on 3 May, 2007 to suggest that the
st
question of service of notice by registered cover on 21
December, 2006 does not arise and that the National
Commission erred in holding that the registered cover was
st
delivered to the appellant-Authority on 21 December, 2006.
17. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents,
could not lay his hand on the record to suggest that the notice
of Complaint No.25 of 2007 was served on the appellant-
JUDGMENT
Authority, though from the order of the State Commission it
was brought to our notice that the notice was issued on the
appellant-Authority.
18. From the perusal of Complaint No.25 of 2007, we find
that the respondents before filing the complaint, gave a notice
th
of demand to the appellant-Authority on 20 December, 2006
st
and it was stated to be served personally on 21 December,
st
2006 and lastly on 21 January, 2007. Relevant paragraph
Page 7
8
No.18 of the Complaint No.25 of 2007 filed by the respondents
reads as follows:
“18. That the cause of action for the petition
arose to the petitioner against the opposite party
firstly on 20.8.05 with the allotment letter was
issued and thereafter continued to accrue on each
and every date when the payments of balance
premium amount were made to the opposite party
and then on 28.10.06 when the opposite party
made the refund of Rs.1,53,62,528/- to the
petitioners and then on 20.12.06 when the
notice of demand was got issued which was
personally served on 21.12.06 and lastly on
21.1.07, when the notice period expired
within the limitation and jurisdiction of this
learned Forum.”
th
19. The order of the State Commission dated 14 October,
2011, suggests that a notice was issued on the appellant-
Authority but nobody appeared on its behalf. The relevant
portion of the order reads as follows:
“The notice was issued to the respondent
but nobody appeared on its behalf. Therefore,
directions were given for ex-parte
proceedings.”
JUDGMENT
However, there is nothing on the record to suggest that the
notice issued by the State Commission was served on the
appellant-Authority.
20. The appellant-Authority specifically pleaded that no
notice was served by the State Commission on it but the
National Commission failed to appreciate the submission and
Page 8
9
st
erred in holding that a notice was served on 21 December,
2006, though the Complaint No.25 of 2007 was filed before the
rd
State Commission much thereafter on 3 May, 2007.
21. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the impugned order
and judgment passed by the National Commission is set aside
and the matter is remitted to the National Commission for
deciding whether the notice issued by the State Commission
was properly served on the appellant-Authority and to decide
the First Appeal No.42 of 2012 on merits.
..........……………………………………………….J.
( G.S. SINGHVI )
..........……………………………………………….J.
( SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA)
NEW DELHI,
AUGUST 24, 2012
JUDGMENT
Page 9