HOUSING BOARD HARYANA versus HOUSING BOARD COLONY WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND ORS.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 219 · Decided: 01-09-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH, FAIZAN UDDIN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

HOUSING BOARD HARYANA 
v. 
HOUSING BOARD COLONY 
WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 1, 1995 
[KULDIP SINGH AND FAIZAN UDDIN, JJ.] 
Consumer Protection Act, 1986/Haryana Consumer Protection Rules, 
1988: 
Ss.15,30(2) n-.4(10), 8(3)--0rder of District Forum-Appeal against-
Period of Limitation-Order pronounced by District Forum on 22.10.1992 but 
A 
B 
c 
not signed by President of Forum on that date-Duly attested copies made 
available to parties on 30.10.1992-Appeal filed before State Commission on 
30.11.1992 as 29.11.1992 was SundaJHeld, appeal filed within limita-
D 
tion-No application for condonation of delay required-Date of pronounce-
ment of order in open Court cannot by itself be starting point for detennining 
period of limitation-It has also to be shown that Forum order was duly 
signed and dated by members of District Forum and was communicated to 
parties free of charge. 
The dispute between the appellant-Board and the respondent-allot-
tees with regard to enhancement of price of the land and the additional 
demand raised by the Board was taken up to the District Consumer Forum 
by the allottees. The District Forum by its order dated 22.10.1992 allowed 
the claim of allottees and quashed the additional demand made by the 
Board. The Board filed appeals before the State Commission on 30.11.1992. 
E 
F 
The State Commission dismissed the. appeals holding that the same were 
filed beyond the period of limitation as provided under section 15 of the 
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and no sufficient cause for condonation of 
delay was pleaded. The Board filed revision petition before the National 
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which maintained the order of G 
the State Lommission. Aggrieved, the Board filed the appeals. 
It was submitted on behalf of the appellant-Board that though the 
President of the District Forum had pronounced the order on 22.10.1992 in 
open Court,he did not sign the said order on that date and proceeded on 
leave; the order was attested and certified on 30.10.1992 and a copy thereof H 
219 
220 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995) SUPP:3 S.C.R. 
A 
was furnished to the appellant only on 3.11.1992; since 29.11.1992 was 
Sunday, the Board filed appeals before the State Commission on 30.11.1992 
i.e. within one month from 30.10.1992, the date on which the attested and 
certified copy of the order was supplied to the appellant, and thus the 
appeals before the State Commission were filed within the period 
B 
prescribed under section 15 of the Act. 
Allowing the appeals, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. The date of pronouncement of the order in the open court 
by itself cannot be the starting point for determining the period oflimitation 
C under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It has also to be 
shown that the order of the District Forum so pronounced was duly signed 
and dated by the members of the District Forum constituting the Bench and 
the same was communicated to the parties free of charge. [226-B-C] 
1.2. Section 15 of the Act cannot be read in isolation but it has to be 
D read alongwith Rules 4(10) and 8(3) of the Haryana Consumer Protection 
Rules, 1988. A combined reading of section 15 of the Act, and Rules 4(10) and 
8(3) of the Rules indicates that the purpose, object and intention of these 
statutory provisions is to protect the interest of the parties before the Dis-
trict Forum by making it obligatory on the District Forum to provide a copy 
E 
of the order duly singed and dated by the members of the Bench and the 
period oflimitation prescribed with regard to the filing ofan appeal shall be 
computed as commencing from the date of communication of the order in 
the manner laid down in sub-rule (10) of Rule 4. Since rule 4(10) of the Rules 
enjoins a duty .for communicating the order of the District Forum duly 
signed and dated to the parties free of charge, there will hardly be an oc-
F 
casion for the parties to make an application for obtaining a certified copy 
thereof. [225-G-H; 226-A-B; 225-F] 
1.3. In the instant case, though the order was pronounced by District 
Forum in the open Court on 22.10.1992, it was not singed and dated, as 
the President had proceeded on leave soon thereafter. It was also the case 
G 
of the appellant that the ·counsel for the appellant-Board was informed 
that the order would be dictated and typed after the return of the President 
and that the copy would be made available to the parties only on 30.10.1992 
under the signa
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.