Case nº Revision Petition No. 499 of 2013 alongwith I.A. No. 886 of 2013 for C/Delay, I.A. No. 887 of 2013 for Stay of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, January 28, 2014 (case Improvement Trust Vs Gurnam Chand, [Alongwith Revision Petition No. 500 of 2013 alongwith I.A. No. 888 of 2013 for C/Delay, I.A. No. 889 of 2013 for Stay and Revision Petition No. 501 of 2013 alongwith I.A. for stay])
| Judge | For Appellant: Mr. Neeraj Sharma, Advocate and Mr. Jeevan Bansal, Executive Officer for Party-in-Person. and For Respondents: None |
| President | V.B. Gupta, J. (Presiding Member) and Rekha Gupta, Member |
| Resolution Date | January 28, 2014 |
| Issuing Organization | National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission |
Order:
1. As similar question of law and facts are involved in these petitions, the same are being disposed of by this common order. Respondents/Complainants have filed the Consumer Complaints before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Barnala (for short, 'District Forum') on the ground that they were allotted plots by the Petitioner-Trust for which instalments due have been paid well within time. It is alleged that petitioner has failed to provide the basic amenities nor it handed over possession of the plots. Thus, there is deficiency on the part of the Petitioner.
2. Consumer complaints were contested by the Petitioner.
3. District Forum allowed the complaints and passed the necessary directions.
4. Being aggrieved, petitioner filed appeals before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab (for short, 'State Commission') which dismissed the same vide its impugned order.
5. Now petitioner has filed the present petitions. Along with it, applications seeking condonation of delay ranging from 65 days to 78 days have been filed.
7. The main ground on which condonation of delay has been sought is, that after receiving the copy of the order it was sent for approval to the Director, Local Government. After receiving the approval, petitioner engaged an Advocate to prepare the revisions and to file the same. The delay has occurred due to the office procedure and as such the same be condoned.
8. It is well settled that "sufficient cause" for condoning the delay in each case is a question of fact.
9. Petitioner case is that the delay has occurred due to the office procedure. No detail whatsoever has been given as to which officials have dealt with the matters at different level. Moreover, it is nowhere stated as to what action has been taken by the petitioner against its delinquent officials for causing the delay.
10. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), laid down that:
It is also apposite to observe that while deciding application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if this Court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the Consumer Foras.
11...
To continue reading
Request your trial