SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2011(3) CPR 61 (NC)
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
NEW DELHI
V.B. Gupta, Presiding Member and Suresh Chandra, Member
Chinnamma —Petitioner
versus
Executive Engineer, Karnataka Housing Board and Anr. —Respondents
Revision Petition No. 359 of 2011 with IA/1, 2 & 3 /2011
Decided on 18.5.2011

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Sharanagouda Patil, Advocate.

IMPORTANT POINT
Sufficient cause for non appearance in each case is a question of fact.

Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 24A—Limitation Act, 1963—Sections 5 and 14—Revision—Delay—Condonation—Delay of 692 days in filing of revision petition—Each day delay has to be explained—Grounds seeking condonation of delay are that petitioner is a lady having poor financial condition and it took some time for arranging funds for filing case and due to wrong legal advice, she filed writ petition in High Court—It cannot be said that petitioner was a lay woman—Taking the averments made in application for condonation of delay on its face value, even then, petition is hopelessly time barred—Revision petition not maintainable being barred by limitation and accordingly dismissed. (Paras 10, 12, 13, 15, 20 and 21)

       

ORDER

V.B. Gupta, Presiding Member—By way of this order, we shall dispose of petitioner’s application seeking condonation of delay of 692 days in filing of the present revision petition.

2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner/complainant had paid Rs.40,500/- pursuant to the allotment of MIG flat in her favour in addition to Rs.1,050/- for registration fee. According to the petitioner, said allotment was cancelled without any notice to her.

3. The defence of the respondents is that since petitioner had not paid the amount as per schedule, the allotment has been cancelled and, thereafter, the same has been allotted to someone else.

4. District Forum ordered the refund of the amount with interest and also awarded damages to be paid to the petitioner.

5. Petitioner not satisfied with the order passed by District Forum, filed an appeal before Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (for short ‘State Commission’). State Commission vide its order dated 11.12.2008 dismissed the appeal of the petitioner as well as application for condonation of delay, as there was delay of ten days in filing of the appeal. However, State Commission further observed that if any vacant house in that area is still available, in the event, if the petitioner files an application for allotment of alternative house, the respondents may consider the same.

6. Aggrieved by the decision of State Commission, petitioner has filed the present revision petition. Since, there is a delay of 692 days in filing of the petition, petitioner has filed an application for condonation of delay.

7. In application for condonation of delay, it has been stated that after passing of the impugned order, her Advocate could not communicate her immediately. Thereafter, when petitioner came to know about the impugned order in the month of May, 2009, she immediately applied for certified copy of the impugned order, which was issued on 20.5.2009 and contacted the Advocate, who advised her to file writ petition but petitioner, being lady and in poor financial condition, it took some time for arranging the funds to file a case in the High Court, which ultimately was filed in May, 2010.

8. Petitioner filed the writ petition due to wrong legal advice and she was granted liberty by the High Court to file this revision petition. The petitioner seeks benefit of Section 14 of Limitation Act due to the fact that writ petition was filed in the wrong Forum.

9. It is further stated that due to above reasons, there is delay of 692 days in filing the revision petition, which is beyond the control of petitioner, not deliberate nor due to negligence on the part of the petitioner and, as such, the delay deserves to be condoned.

10. It is well settled that each day delay has to be explained. The grounds seeking condonation of delay are that the petitioner is a lady having poor financial condition and thus, it took some time for arranging the funds for filing the case and due to wrong legal advice, she filed writ petition in the High Court.

11. As per petitioner’s case, the impugned order was passed on 11.12.2008 and as such petitioner’s Advocate could not communicate with her immediately and she came to know about the passing of the impugned order in May, 2009.

12. Petitioner, in the entire application has nowhere stated as to what was the source of her knowledge and how she came to know about the passing of the impugned order in May, 2009. The application for condonation of delay is absolutely silent on this aspect. Further, the case of petitioner is that it took some time for arranging the money and after arrangement of the amount, she filed writ petition in the High Court in May, 2009. It is nowhere stated as to how and from where petitioner arranged the funds nor there is any explanation as to how she has taken about one year for arranging the funds.

13. Taking the averments made in application for condonation of delay on its face value, even then, the petition is hopelessly ti















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top