1.      This Revision Petition has been filed under Section ­­­21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the “Act”) against the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karnataka (‘State Commission’) order dated 20.09.2019 in FA No.2218/ 2012. In this the Appeal by the Petitioner/Complainant was dismissed, affirming the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mysore (“District Forum”) Order dated 21.11.2012 in CC No. 567 of 2011.

2.      As per report of the Registry, there is a delay of 46 days in filing the present Revision Petition. As the delay occurred during the suspending period of limitation due to Covid-19, the present Revision Petition is treated to have been filed within limitation. 

3.      For the convenience, the parties are referred to as placed in the original Complaint filed before the District Forum.

4.      Brief facts of the case, as per the Complainant, are that he applied six times since 1991 for a site under the "State Government Employees" quota.  His name should have been at No. 25 in the seniority list but was unfairly moved to the general category and junior applicants were allotted sites out of turn in the Vasanthanagar layout, violating seniority. The shift to the general category was done arbitrarily and against the rules. This mismanagement amounted to restrictive trade practices, and caused him mental agony, financial loss due to rising construction costs. Despite a legal notice and obtaining proof through the RTI Act, no corrective action was taken. Being aggrieved the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum.

5.      In their written version before the District Forum, OP-1 contended that the shift from the "State Government Employees" category to the "General" category was based on a decision taken by a sub-committee on 13.06.2005, per Rule 14 of the Karnataka Urban Development Authority (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1991, as the complainant retired on 31.07.2005. After being shifted to the general category, he lacked seniority and was not eligible for allotment in the Vasanthanagar layout. His challenge of 2005 decision was delayed by over five years, making the complaint barred by limitation under Section 24A of the Act, 1986. Since the complainant was not allotted any site, he cannot be deemed a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. OP-1 contended that allotment was strictly based on seniority within the relevant category, but the complainant disputed this based on RTI findings. The shift to general category was justified by a policy decision in 2005. However, he challenged its fairness and transparency. His challenge of 2005 decision, and no justification for the delay potentially barred the claim. The complainant has not been allotted any site, and under the cited precedent, he may not qualify as a consumer.

6.      The learned District Forum vide order dated 21.11.2012, dismissed the complaint with the following observations:

“9)  From the aforesaid contentions of both the parties clearly disclose that admittedly the name of the complainant has been shifted to the list of general category from the list of State Government employees category. But the material on record clearly discloses that the same is done by the opponents as per the decision of the sub- committee meeting held on 13.06.2005 and not without any valid reason as alleged by the complainant. The contents of the decision taken by the sub-committee produced by the opponent-No.1-clearly discloses that the said committee has taken such a decision in the meeting held on 13.06.2005 and therefore, it is not possible to find fault with the opponents or his officials in the matter of shifting the name of the complainant to the list of general category from the State Government employees category. Apart from the same, though the said committee has taken such a decision in the year 2005, the complainant has not challenged-the same for a period of more than five years and this complaint is filed by him after the lapse of more than five years challenging the same is barred by law of limitation. Apart from the above, during the course of arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the opponent No.1 submitted that the complainant is not allotted with any site so for and therefore, he cannot be treated as a consumer as defined under the C.P. Act 1986, to maintain this complaint. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the opponent has also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble National Commission, New Delhi reported in 1(2010) CPJ 99 (NC) (Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority and Another vs Krishan Lal Chander). In the said decision, the Hon'ble National Commission clearly held that mere filing of application for allotment of site did not give any right to allotment of site and the filing of the application for allotment of site at most grants the proposed allottee only a right to be considered and no higher right than that accrues to him and till the allotment of site, the proposed applicant cannot be treated as a consumer as defined under the C.P. Act 1986.

10) On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the complainant has submitted that as soon as the application is filed for allotment of site, the applicant becomes the consumer as defined under the C.P. Act 1986 and any deficiency in service in the matter of allotment of site is amenable to the jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora and thus, he has contended that though the site is not allotted, the complainant is a consumer as defined under the C.P. Act 1986 and the complaint filed by him is perfectly maintainable in law. Thus, the learned counsel appearing for the complainant has urged for directing the opponent to allot a site as sought for in the complaint. In support of his arguments, he has also relied upon the Ruling of the Hon'ble Apex court reported in III (1993) CPJ 7 (SC) (Lucknow Development Authority Vs. M.K. Gupta) and further contended that in view of the said Ruling of the Apex Court, the decision of the Hon'ble National Commission relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the contesting opponent No.1 is not applicable to the case on hand and thus urged for rejecting the defence of the contesting opponent No.1 and to allot the site as sought for in the complaint. But, in the said decision relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the contesting opponent No.1, the Hon'ble National Commission, New Delhi was pleased to reach such a conclusion even after considering the said ruling of the Hon'ble Apex court relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the complainant. Therefore, it is not possible to accept the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the complainant.

11) In view of all the aforesaid reasons and the principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble National Commission in the decision referred above, we have no other alternative except to hold that the complainant is not a consumer as defined under the C.P. Act 1986 to maintain this complaint and therefore, the complainant is not entitled for any of the reliefs sought for in the complaint. Consequently, we answer the point No.1 in the negative.

12) Point No.2:- In view of the reasons and the finding recorded on the point No.1, we hold that in the ends of justice, the complaint is liable to be dismissed with a direction to the parties to bear their own costs. Hence in the final result, we proceed to pass the following,

::ORDER::

The complaint is hereby dismissed.”

7.      Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the Petitioner filed an Appeal and the learned State Commission, vide order dated 20.09.2019 dismissed the Appeal with the following observations:

“12. Heard the counsel for the appellant. None represents the respondent. Argument of the Respondent is taken as heard.

13. It is the case of the complainant that he filed an application for allotment of site measuring 30' X 40' feet in MUDA for the Year 1991 and he completed the service during 2005. However his last attempt said to have been made in the year 2006. Despite all attempts made under the State Government quota, he was not allotted a site for the reason was unsuccessful. Thus the OP has committed deficiency in service in not allotting the site under State Government Quota to the complainant. Since the complainant is a senior citizen and he made all attempts in making application for allotment of site under State Government Quota. However as per Rule-14 of Karnataka Urban Development Authority (allotment of sites) Rules, 1991. The sub-committee meeting and also decision taken in the sub-committee held on 13.06.2005, the complainant was shifted to State Government to General Category and the complainant has not approached the OP or any other forum seeking for issuance of direction to the OP for allotment of site and he was kept and silent in the Year 2006 and thereafter he filed the complaint during 2011 is barred by Limitation. Since the complainant has to file the complaint within 2 years from the last attempt made by him in the year 2006. In this regard, the complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground of limitation.

14. The learned Counsel appearing for the complainant relied upon the decision rendered by the Apex Court reported in III (1999) CPJ 7 (SC) Lucknow Development Authority V/s M.K. Gupta. The said decision is not applicable to the facts of the case on hand. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the OP also relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble National Commission, New Delhi reported in I (2010) CPJ 99 (NC) Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority and Another V/s Krishan Pal Chander. Wherein it is held that mere filing of application for allotment of site did not give any right to allotment of site and filing of the application for allotment of site at most grants he proposed allottee only a right to be considered and no higher right than that accrues to him and till the allotment of site, the proposed applicant cannot be treated as a consumer as defined under the C.P.Act 1986. On this ground, thus in view of the decisions present complaint filed before the District Forum is not maintainable since the complainant is not a 'Consumer' as defined under the Consumer Protection Act 1986. Thus the Impugned Order is just and proper and same does not call for any interferences.  Hence the following:

ORDER

The appeal is dismissed no cost.”

8.      The learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Complainant reiterated the grounds taken in the Revision Petition and asserted that his name should have been at No. 25 in the seniority list but was unfairly moved to the general category and junior applicants were allotted sites out of turn in the Vasanthanagar layout, violating seniority. The shift to the general category was done arbitrarily and against the rules. This mismanagement caused mental agony, financial loss due to rising construction costs, and amounted to restrictive trade practices. He sought to allow the Revision Petition and set aside the impugned orders of the lower fora and consequently, allowed the complaint.  He relied upon the judgment in the case of Lucknow Development Authority vs. M.K. Gupta, reported III (1993) CPJ 7 (SC).

9.      The learned Counsel for OPs argued in support of the orders passed by the District Forum and the State Commission. He sought to dismiss the present Revision Petition with costs. He relied upon the judgment in Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority and Another vs. Krishan Pal Chander reported in I (2010) CPJ 99 (C).

10.    I have examined the pleadings and associated records, including the orders of the learned District Forum and the learned State Commission and rendered thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsels for both the parties.

11.    The District Forum issued a well-reasoned order based on evidence and arguments advanced before it. The State Commission after due consideration of the pleadings and arguments, determined that no intervention is warranted on the District Forum's order. This was primarily because on the grounds that, mere filing of application for allotment of site did not give any right to allotment of site. Filing of the application for allotment of site at most grants the proposed allottee only a right to be considered and no higher right than that right accrues upon him. Till the allotment of a site, the proposed applicant cannot be treated as a consumer as defined under the Act, 1986. 

12.    It is well settled position in law that the scope for Revision under Section 21(b) of the Act, 1986 and now under Section 58(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 confers very limited jurisdiction on this Commission. In the present case, there are concurrent findings of the facts and the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission is limited. After due consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the Order passed by the State Commission, warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction under the Act. I place reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 11 SCC 269.

13.    In addition, Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Sunil Kumar Maity vs. SBI & Anr.  Civil Appeal No. 432 OF 2022 Order dated 21.01.2022 observed as follows:-

“9. It is needless to say that the revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the said Act is extremely limited. It should be exercised only in case as contemplated within the parameters specified in the said provision, namely when it appears to the National Commission that the State Commission had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. In the instant case, the National Commission itself had exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by calling for the report from the respondent-bank and solely relying upon such report, had come to the conclusion that the two fora below had erred in not undertaking the requisite in-depth appraisal of the case that was required. .....”

14.    Similarly, in Rajiv Shukla Vs. Gold Rush Sales and Services Ltd. (2022) 9 SCC 31 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:- 

As per Section 21(b) the National Commission shall have jurisdiction to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any State Commission where it appears to the National Commission that such State Commission has exercised its jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. Thus, the powers of the National Commission are very limited. Only in a case where it is found that the State Commission has exercised its jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise the jurisdiction so vested illegally or with material irregularity, the National Commission would be justified in exercising the revisional jurisdiction. In exercising of revisional jurisdiction the National Commission has no jurisdiction to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the District Forum and the State Commission which are on appreciation of evidence on record.

15.    Based on the deliberations above, I do not find any merit in the present Revision Petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed.

16.    Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, there shall be no order as to costs.

17.    All pending Applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.