Case nº Revision Petition No. 2588 Of 2015, (Against the Order dated 01/07/2015 in Appeal No. 603/2015 of the State Commission Punjab of NCDRC Cases, October 20, 2015 (case Ludhiana Improvement Trust and Anr. Vs Janinder Kumar Jain)
| Judge | For Appellant: Mr. Shubham Bhalla, Adv. |
| President | Mr. K.S. Chaudhari, Presiding Member |
| Resolution Date | October 20, 2015 |
| Issuing Organization | NCDRC Cases |
Order:
K.S. Chaudhari, Presiding Member
-
This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 01.07.2015 passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, 2nd Addl. Bench, Chandigarh (in short, ''the State Commission'') in Misc. Appn. No. 1126/2015 in Appeal No. 603/2015 -- Ludhiana Improvement Trust & Anr. Vs. Janinder Kumar Jain & Anr. by which, appeal was dismissed as barred by limitation.
-
Brief facts of the case are that complainant/Respondent No.1 filed complaint before District Forum and learned District Forum vide order dated 15.6.2010 allowed complaint and directed OP/petitioner to allot alternative plot of 150 sq. yds. in equally developed locality at old price and further directed to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- on account of escalation of cost of construction, Rs.50,000/- for mental harassment and Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation. OP filed appeal along with application for condonation of delay of 1776 days which was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed.
-
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused record.
-
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that on account of lapses on the part of officials, appeal could not be filed in time and inspite of reasonable explanation for condonation of delay, learned State Commission committed error in dismissing application as well appeal; hence, revision petition be admitted.
-
Perusal of impugned order reveals that District Forum allowed complaint by order dated 15.6.2010 which was received by OP on 29.6.2010. As per averment in the application, on filing execution by complainant it was found that copy of order of District Forum was annexed with file by putting respective number and date. Learned State Commission observed that there was no cutting on the page and prima facie no proof that entry of Sr. No. 3085 by which order of District Forum was received was made later on. In such circumstances, it cannot be inferred that order of District Forum was annexed with record later on by employee of OP in connivance with complainant. Even if for the sake of argument it is presumed that order of District Forum was annexed later on, admittedly OP came to know about order on 14.8.2010 when notice of execution petition was received by OP. File was placed before Chairman on 17.10.2014 meaning thereby, after two months of receiving notice of execution...
To continue reading
Request your trial