1.       This Revision Petition under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”) has been filed by the Delhi Development Authority (for short “the Authority”) against the order, dated 21.07.2015, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (for short “the State Commission”) in First Appeal No. 229 of 2011.  By the impugned order, while negating the contention of the Authority that the Respondent/Complainant was not a ‘consumer’ within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Act, which had been made by it relying on the decision of this Commission in DDA V. Parveen Kumar And Ors. (Revision Petition No. 3649 of 2014), the State Commission has held that in the present case, admittedly, the Complaint was registered after the Complainant had made a deposit of ₹20,000/- with the Authority and, therefore, he is a consumer.  Consequently, the State Commission has dismissed the said Appeal.

2.       The Appeal had been preferred by the Authority, questioning the correctness and legality of the order, dated 15.01.2011, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, New Delhi (for short “the District Forum”) in Complaint Case No. 22 of 2008.  By the said order, the District Forum had held that the Authority was guilty of deficiency of service and, accordingly, while allowing the Complaint, directed the Authority to refund the registration amount of ₹20,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from 16.01.2014 till payment as also ₹1,00,000/- as compensation towards the mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses, to the Complainant.

3.       On dismissal of its Appeal by the State Commission, the Authority is before us. 

4.       It is pointed out by the office that the Revision Petition is barred by limitation as there is a delay of 137 days in filing the same.  An application praying for condonation of the said delay has been filed along with the Revision Petition.  In paragraphs no.3 to 5 of the said application, the following explanation, in the narrative form, has been furnished:

“3.      That the impugned order is dated 21.07.2015.  Arguments were heard on 21.07.2015.  Thereafter order was passed.  Certified copy of the order was not received in the DDA.  The counsel for the petitioner Shri P.K. Aggarwaal down loaded copy of the order from the inter-net and sent the file to Sr. Law Officer (Housing) vide his noting dated 13.8.2015.  Shri P.K. Aggarwal submitted the file at Tis Hazari courts on 17.8.2015.  The file was received in the office of Sr. Law Officer (Housing) on 18.8.2015.  Sr. Law Officer vide his noting dated 18.8.2015 sent the file to Sr. Law Officer (Contract).  On the same day the file was sent to Director (Housing).  On 18.8.2015 itself Director (Housing) marked the file to Dy. Director (Housing).  Dy. Director (Housing) made a note on 24.8.2015 and sent the file to Assistant Director EHS (Housing) for preparing a detailed note and discussing the matter with Shri P.K. Aggarwal, who conducted the matter before the Hon’ble State Commission.  Assistant Director (Housing) discussed the matter with Shri P.K. Aggarwal and thereafter prepared a detailed note on 1.9.2015 and sent the file to Dy. Director EHS (Housing).  Dy. Director EHS (Housing) sent the file to Director (Housing) on 3.9.2015.  Director (Housing) then sent the file to Commissioner (Housing).  The file was received in the office of Principal Commissioner (Housing).  Principal Commissioner (Housing) vide his noting dated 5.9.2015 made a note to the effect for calling a meeting on suitable date and time for discussion.  It appears that the file was tagged with some other files.  However, the file was received by Director (Housing) on 5.10.2015.  He sent the file to Dy. Director (Housing) on 5.10.2015.  Dy. Director (Housing) vide his noting dated 6.10.2015 sent the file to Assistant Director EHS (Housing).  Assistant Director EHS (Housing) on the same day sent the file to dealing Assistant.  As the dealing Assistant had not placed the matter before the Dy. Director (Housing), Dy. Director (Housing) called the dealing Assistant and took the file from him.  He vide his noting dated 23.10.2015, asked the Assistant Director EHS (Housing) to prepare a note so that meeting could be called.  Again the Dy. Director (Housing) called the file from Assistant.  Director (Housing) and he again prepared a note on 29.10.2015 and sent the file to Director (Housing) for calling a meeting as desired by Principal Commissioner and for fixing date of meeting.  The meeting was called for 5.11.2015.  Thereafter the minutes of the meeting were prepared on 9.11.2015 and in the meeting it was decided that the registration amount of Rs.20,000/- along with interest @ 7% p.a. be immediately refunded to the respondent and for the remaining amount DDA should challenge the order before the Hon’ble National Commission.  Thereafter the Dy. Director EHS (Housing) prepared a note on 10.11.2015 and sent the file to Director (Housing-II).  Director (Housing-II) then sent the file to the Financial Advisor (Housing) for refunding the amount in terms of the directions given by the Principal Commissioner (Housing) in the meeting held on 5.11.2015.  Thereafter the file went from one table to another i.e. Financial Advisor (Housing), various officers of the Accounts Department i.e. AAO, AO, Sr. AO etc. etc.  That Cheque No. 231254 dated 16.11.2015 for Rs.36,147/- on account of refund of registration money of Rs.20,000/- with interest @ 7% p.a. was prepared and thereafter the file was again went from one table to another in the Accounts Department.  The file was then sent to the Dy. Director EHS (Housing) on 16.11.2015.  The Dy. Director (Housing) then sent the file to Assistant Director EHS (Housing).  Assistant Director EHS (Housing) sent the cheque No. 231254 dated 16.11.2015 for Rs.36,147/- drawn on State Bank of India (Rs.20,000/- as principal and Rs.16,147/- as interest from 16.1.2014 till the date of cheque).  The said cheque was sent by Assistant Director EHS (Housing) to the respondent herein by post vide letter dated 27.11.205.  The Assistant Director (Housing) vide his noting dated 30.11.2015 then sent the file to Deputy Director (Housing) informing that refund of registration money has already been made and for taking further action in terms of the directions given by the Principal Commissioner (Housing).  Deputy Director (Housing) then asked the Assistant Director (Housing) to discuss the case.  The case was discussed by the Assistant Director (Housing) with the Dy. Director (Housing).  Assistant Director (Housing) prepared a detailed note on 4.12.2015 and marked the file to Dy. Director (Housing).  Deputy Director (Housing) then sent the file to Director (Housing-II).  Director (Housing-II) vide his noting dated 8.12.2015 noted on the file that decision with regard to challenging the order has already been taken and thus the file was sent to the Deputy Director EHS (Housing).  Deputy Director EHS (Housing) then sent the file to Assistant Director (Housing).  Assistant Director (Housing) vide his noting dated 9.12.2015 sent the file for entrustment and the file thereafter passed various tables i.e. Deputy Director (Housing), Sr. Law Officer, Sr. Law Officer vide his noting dated 10.12.2015 marked the file to Jr. Law Officer (Housing).  Jr. Law Officer (Housing) on 11.12.2015 sent the file to Sr. Law Officer.  The file was then sent to Chief Legal Advisor.  Vide noting dated 14.12.2015 the case was entrusted to Ms. Ravi Prabha, Panel lawyer for drafting and filing of appeal.  The file then passed various tables i.e. AD (Legal) and the file was then sent to Sr. Law Officer (Housing).  Sr. Law Officer (Housing) vide noting dated 16.12.2015 sent the file to Jr. Law Officer (Housing).  Jr. Law Officer (Housing) then sent the file to Dy. Director (Housing) and Dy. Director (Housing) then sent the file to Assistant Director (Housing) on 17.12.2015.  The file was then sent to panel lawyer Ms. Ravi Prabha on 17.12.2015.  Ms. Ravi Prabha drafted the Revision Petition and sent the file to Sr. Law Officer (Housing) vide her noting dated 14.01.2016.  It is submitted that the certified copy of the impugned order passed by the Hon’ble State Commission was not received in D.D.A.  Therefore on the basis of telephonic call received from Ravi Prabha Panel Lawyer, the certified copy was applied and was delivered to the D.D.A. on 7.1.16 indicating therein that the First Free Copy was issued on 4.8.2015.  It is again reiterated that the certified copy of the order passed by the State Commission was not received by the EHS branch of D.D.A.  The file thereafter went from one table to another for signature on the Revision Petition, application for stay and application for condonation of delay.  The file passed various tables i.e. Sr. Law Officer (Housing), Dy. Director EHS (Housing), Assistant Director EHS (Housing), Deputy Director (Housing), Sr. Law Officer, Dy. Director (Housing) etc. etc.  That on verification of facts by the competent authority, it was observed that some modification are required.  Further in the meeting held in the Chamber of Principal Commissioner on 5.11.2015, it was decided that the Revision Petition is to be drafted and filed by Shri P.K. Aggarwal, Advocate.  Therefore, Assistant Director (Housing) vide his noting dated 12.2.2016 sent the present case for re-entrustment to Shri P.K. Aggarwal, Advocate.  The file then passed various tables i.e. Dy. Director EHS (Housing), Director (Housing-II), Principal Commissioner (Housing) and the file was then placed before the Chief Legal Advisor on 23.2.2016.  The file then passed various tables and reached on the table of Assistant Director (EHS). Assistant Director EHS (Housing) brought the file to Shri P.K. Aggarwal, Advocate on 25.2.2016.  Shri P.K. Aggarwal thereafter drafted the Revision Petition and sent the file to department for signature and verification of facts.  After verification of facts, Director (Housing) signed the present Revision Petition.  The present Revision Petition is being filed immediately on 18-3-16 when the file was received by Sh. P.K. Aggarwal on 18/3/16.

4.       That on the duplicate certified copy issued to the appellant it has been stated that the First Free copy was supplied on 4.8.15.  (However the same was not received in D.D.A.).  However, if the limitation is reckoned from the said date there is delay of 197 in filing of the present petition.

5.       That the petitioner is a Government Organization and an impersonal machinery and has to act through its officials and the matter has to be examined at various levels and the file has to move from one table to another.”    

5.       We have heard learned counsel for the Petitioner/Authority on the question of delay.

6.       In our view, although the explanation appears to be elaborate but it lacks substance.  Though the contention is that it did not receive the free certified copy of the impugned order issued by the State Commission on 04.08.2015, in the absence of any supporting document i.e. copy of the relevant registers, the explanation cannot be accepted as the gospel truth.  However, even if it is assumed that the state of affairs was in fact so, the fact remains that the present Revision Petition has been filed on 18.03.2016, i.e. with an inordinate delay of 137 days, beyond the prescribed period of 90 days, provided for filing the Revision Petition as per Regulation-14 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.  Admittedly, on 04.08.2015 Counsel for the Authority came to know about the impugned order and vide his noting dated 13.08.2015 sent the file to officer concerned of the Authority, which was received by the said officer on 18.08.2015.  The Authority took two and a half months in deciding the further course of action to be taken in the matter, as it was only on 05.11.2015 that a meeting was convened to discuss the matter wherein the decision to refund the registration amount with interest but to challenge the impugned order before this Commission was taken.  Yet, the Authority was pursuing the matter in a lax manner and the file was moving from one table to another.  Bearing in mind the fact that the Revision Petition, to be filed, was already barred by limitation and that the refund and filing of the Revision Petition were two distinct matters, the Authority ought to have pursued the matter promptly but it was not so.  Even after taking the decision to file the Revision Petition, the Authority took more than one month in assigning the matter to its Counsel.  Thereafter, the said Counsel drafted the Revision Petition and submitted the same with the Authority on 14.01.2016, yet the Authority took further one month in reassigning the matter to another Counsel, as in the opinion of the Authority some modifications were required in the Revision Petition drafted by the earlier Counsel.  Finally, after the above exercise, the Revision Petition was filed before this Commission on 18.03.2016 with an inordinate delay of 137 days.

7.       The question of delay by the Government Departments in prosecuting the cases has been engaging the attention of the Courts.  Recently, in Postmaster General and Ors. V. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. [(2012) 3 SCC 563], the Supreme Court has been pleased to observe as under :

“28.    Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody, including the Government.

29. In our view, it is right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bona fide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red tape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for the government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few.”   

8.       In the instant case also, the Authority, being a Public Sector Undertaking, ought to have acted in the matter prudently and diligently.  If at all it was really interested in pursuing the matter at the higher Forums, instead of processing the matter in routine, it ought to have been on its toes to ensure that the orders, passed against it by the District Forum and the State Commission, were challenged within the prescribed period of limitation of 90 days, even after receiving the copy of the impugned order on 04.08.2015.  Clearly, the Authority was negligent in prosecuting its cause.  We are also of the view that condonation of delay in this case would cause unnecessary harassment to the Complainant, who had deposited the registration amount with it on 16.01.2014 in the hope of getting a flat, but was unable to get the same.      

9.       Bearing in mind the afore-stated facts as also the quantum of the amount involved, we are not inclined to condone inordinate delay of 137 days in filing of the present Revision Petition.                       

10.     Consequently, the Revision Petition is dismissed in limine on the ground of limitation.