Case nº Revision Petition No. 2473 of 2014 and IA/3910/2014 of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, July 16, 2014 (case Harpreet Kaur Vs Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd.)
| Judge | For Respondents: Harpreet Singh and Suresh Chaudhary, Advocates |
| President | K.S. Chaudhari, J. (Presiding Member) and Vinay Kumar, Member |
| Resolution Date | July 16, 2014 |
| Issuing Organization | National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission |
Order:
K.S. Chaudhari, J. (Presiding Member)
-
This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 16.09.2013 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, 'the State Commission') in Appeal No. 459 of 2013 - Sahara India Commercial Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Harpreet Kaur by which, while allowing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was set aside and case was remanded back to District Forum.
-
Brief facts of the case are that complainant/petitioner was allotted villa by OP/respondent, but possession of villa was not handed over within the period promised in agreement. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint. OP resisted complaint and submitted that possession of villa could not be handed over for want of some statutory compliance in the project. It was further pleaded that as per Clause 17 of the agreement, OP was not liable for any penalty and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties, allowed complaint and directed OP to pay penalty @ Rs.10/- per sq. ft. per month for delay in delivery of possession with interest. Appeal filed by the OP was allowed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed along with application for condonation of delay of 168 days.
-
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner on application for condonation of delay and perused record.
-
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that delay occurred in seeking legal advice and procuring impugned order; hence, delay be condoned.
-
Paragraphs 3 & 4 of the application for condonation of delay runs as under:
-
That impugned judgment and order was passed by the Ld. State Commission on 16.09.2013. That since the petitioner is based in New Delhi and the order was passed by the learned State Commission, Haryana at Panchkula, there was some delay in procuring the order.
-
That, upon receipt of the order, the petitioner appeared before the learned District Forum, Gurgaon in terms of the impugned order. However, upon seeking legal advised, the petitioner is approaching this Hon'ble Commission against the impugned order. In the entire process, some delay has occurred in approaching this Hon'ble Commission.
-
Apparently, no reason has been shown in the application by the petitioner for condoning inordinate delay of 168 days in filing revision petition. This is no ground that...
To continue reading
Request your trial