I am writing this to bring out a serious case, which indicates that the judicial forums such as the CIC and the NCDRC have also been afflicted by the disease which pervades all our institutions – corruption. I have already seen 3-4 instances in the CIC, when Intimation of hearings were not sent and dates of hearing were changed at short notice, at the behest of interested parties. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) and the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions are not immune from this virus.
I had filed a case in 2003 in the Delhi State Consumer Commission against the Army Welfare Housing Organisation (AWHO) for providing me a flat whose covered area was less than what was shown in the documents (1412 sq ft). Using the RTI Act, 2005, I was able to get the sanctioned building plans and other documents from the Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA), which confirmed that the covered area is just 1269 sq. ft. There was a shortfall of 144 sq. ft. or more than 10%. After this was produced in the State Commission, in a judgment delivered on 20/01/2009, the Commission ordered the AWHO to refund Rs 25,000 for the shortfall, in addition to a penalty of Rs 50,000.
The AWHO did not comply with the order. More than six months after this, it filed an appeal in the National Consumer Commission in October 2009. Since the time limit of 30 days was over, it forged the date. Copies of the order were issued to both parties on 26/3/2009. The figure 3 was altered to look like8, and the date became 26/8/2009. This was confirmed by State Commission in response to an RTI application, and was brought to the notice of the National Commission in my reply. I also reported this fact in writing to the Registrar, NCDRC, who wrote to the State Commission to confirm the date of the order. The State Commission wrote back to the NCDRC, confirming that copies of the order were issued to both parties on 26/3/2009.
The fact that the appeal of the AWHO was time barred was part of my reply submitted to the NCDRC during the first hearing on 4/1/2010. It was also mentioned by me during the next hearing on 16/3/2010 and the final hearing on29/7/2010. For some reason the order was reserved. After several visits to the National Commission, I got fed up and filed an RTI application on 11/11/2010.Soon after this, I received the order of the National Commission issued on22/11/2010. It set aside the judgment of the State Commission. It made no mention of the forgery committed buy the AWHO.
On 20/12/2010 I filed a review petition in the NCDRC u/s 22(2) of the Act. Since the appeal of the AWHO was clearly time barred, the order of the State Commission should be considered final, as per Section 24 of the Act. As expected, the review petition was dismissed. I then made an official complaint to the Registrar NCDRC on 15/3/2011 reporting the case of fabricating false evidence and forgery of court records. These offences are punishable by up to 7 years imprisonment according to section 193, 466 and 471 of the IPC. It was clear that the forgery was committed by officers/counsel of the AWHO, in connivance with the staff of the NCDRC, who admitted the appeal. I requested the NCDRC to report the matter to the police and register an FIR. According toSection 195 (b) (i) and (ii) of the Cr.P.C.,, courts can take cognizance of anoffence u/s 193 and 471 of the IPC only based on a complaint in writing of the court in relation to which the offence was committed.
Receiving no response from the NCDRC, I filed an RTI application on 2/5/2011 followed by a first appeal on 6/6/2011. The replies given by the NCDRC were evasive. I then filed a 2nd Appeal before the CIC on 22/7/2011. The case was heard by Shri Vijay Sharma. Information Commissioner on 25/5/2001. A copy of the order of the same date in case No. CIC/SS/A/2011/001980/VS/00192 is attached. Extracts are given below:-
The response of the NCDRC was obfuscated. This was brought out by the appellant in the hearing, taking into account that the date of an order was tampered with by overwriting to circumvent the period of the limitation, which was a serious matter that should have triggered the NCDRC into action. It was stated by the appellant that the fabricated order was used to avoid the time bar, but the NCDRC did not file a forgery case with the police against those responsible, in this case, the Army Welfare Housing Organisation.
The NCDRC has been ordered to provide the complete information including certified copies of file notings within 30 days. I am not sure if they will comply. Like most government agencies, they will probably appeal the order in the High Court. I have filed a separate complaint with the Police. They have not registered an FIR, probably for the reasons already mentioned. After RTI applications and first appeals have failed do elicit any response, I have filed a 2nd appeal with the CIC, which is yet to be heard.
Incidentally, the lawyer representing the AWHO in the NCDRC was there in the State Commission also, where the case took 6 years to be decided. I learned that the lawyer was making sure that my case was always listed last. As a result, it was never heard, and was always adjourned. It was only after 3-4 years that I discovered this, and wrote a letter to the Registrar, who advised me to mention it before the Judge, which I did. Justice JD Kapoor promised to decide it at the next hearing, which he did.
Kindly advise on what are the avenues open to me now. I should have appealed to the Supreme Court against the order of the NCDRC, but I decided against it. I have too many cases already to contend with. If nothing works, I intend filing a complaint with the Delhi Bar Council against the lawyer, for unethical practices. I do not understand why they need 55 copies of the complaint!
