Please Log in / Register to access the full text of this judgment and the entire database
(2023) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 18950 = 2024(1) L.A.R. 128
Decided on: 09.08.2023
For Appellant(s):
Mr. B.K. Satija, AAG, Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, AOR, Ms. Amrita Verma, Adv.
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (68 of 1986), Section 21 -- Revision – Delay of 854 day – Condonation of delay – District Forum allowed the complaint directing the HUDA to issue the allotment letter – Appeal dismissed by State Commission – HUDA had taken a decision that the Revision Petition not be filed – When notice was issued to the HUDA in the execution proceedings, the Revision Petition was filed with a delay of 854 days – NCDRC was of the opinion that such delay cannot be condoned – No reason to interfere with the impugned order.
(Para 2-5)
ORDER
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the appeal papers.
2. The respondent herein was before the District Forum making a grievance with regard to the non-allotment of the plot by the appellants herein. The District Forum through its judgment dated 22.01.2007 has allowed the complaint directing the appellants herein to issue the allotment letter.
3. The appeal filed by the appellants herein before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula (for short `State Commission’) had been dismissed through the judgment dated 08.06.2009. Thereafter, the appellants herein, filed a Revision Petition before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (for short `NCDRC’). Since, there was delay of 854 days in filing the petition, condonation of such delay was sought. The NCDRC having found that there is no sufficient cause for condoning such inordinate delay, has dismissed the revision petition on the ground of delay through its order dated 08.05.2013.
4. From a perusal of the order impugned, it is seen that the NCDRC had kept in view the fact that the records indicated that the appellant herein, on 17.07.2009 had taken a decision and it was recommended that the Revision Petition not be filed. It is only thereafter when notice was issued to the appellant in the execution proceedings for implementation of the order passed by the District Forum which had been upheld by the State Commission, the Revision Petition was filed with a delay of 854 days.
5. In a matter, where the appellants themselves had taken a conscious decision not to challenge the said order passed by the Forums below but thereafter, filed a Revision Petition with delay of 854 days, the NCDRC was of the opinion that such delay cannot be condoned. Though, learned counsel for the appellants seeks to contend that there is no material on record to indicate that such decision was taken, from the perusal of the order, it is noted that the attention of the NCDRC was drawn towards a noting of the office file of the appellants. There is no other contrary material placed before us to take any other decision. Therefore, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order.
6. The appeal being devoid of merits, stands disposed of.
Order accordingly.
********