Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
D.K. Jain, President, Mrs. M. Shreesha, Member
Delhi Development Authority —Petitioner
versus
Jaswant Goel —Respondent
Revision Petition No.798 of 2016
(Against the Order dated 21/07/2015 in Appeal No. 229/2011 of the State Commission Delhi)
Decided on 8.4.2016
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Pradhuman Kumar Aggarwal, Advocate with Mr. Dalip Kumar, AD (EHS), DDA.
IMPORTANT POINT
Inordinate delay in filing of revision petition cannot be condoned.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986— Sections 15, 17, 19 and 21—Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005—Regulation 14—Revision—Limitation— Delay of 137 days in filing of revision petition—Authority, being a Public Sector Undertaking, ought to have acted in the matter prudently and diligently—If at all it was really interested in pursuing the matter at t higher Forum, instead of processing the matter in routine, it ought to have been on its toes to ensure that orders passed against it by District Forum and State Commission, were challenged within prescribed period of limitation of 90 days even after receiving copy of impugned order—Authority was negligent in prosecuting its cause—Condonation of delay in this case would cause unnecessary harassment to Complainant who had deposited registration amount in hope of getting a flat, but was unable to get the same—Commission not inclined to condone inordinate delay of 137 days in filing of Revision Petition—Revision petition dismissed. (Paras 8 to 10)
Result: Revision Petition dismissed.
This Revision Petition under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”) has been filed by the Delhi Development Authority (for short “the Authority”) against the order, dated 21.07.2015, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (for short “the State Commission”) in First Appeal No. 229 of 2011. By the impugned order, while negating the contention of the Authority that the Respondent/Complainant was not a ‘consumer’ within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Act, which had been made by it relying on the decision of this Commission in DDA V. Parveen Kumar And Ors. (Revision Petition No. 3649 of 2014), the State Commission has held that in the present case, admittedly, the Complaint was registered after the Complainant had made a deposit of Rs.20,000/- with the Authority and, therefore, he is a consumer. Consequently, the State Commission has dismissed the said Appeal.
2. The Appeal had been preferred by the Authority, questioning the correctness and legality of the order, dated 15.01.2011, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, New Delhi (for short “the District Forum”) in Complaint Case No. 22 of 2008. By the said order, the District Forum had held that the Authority was guilty of deficiency of service and, accordingly, while allowing the Complaint, directed the Authority to refund the registration amount of Rs.20,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from 16.01.2014 till payment as also Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation towards the mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses, to the Complainant.
3. On dismissal of its Appeal by the State Commission, the Authority is before us.
4. It is pointed out by the office that the Revision Petition is barred by limitation as there is a delay of 137 days in filing the same. An application praying for condonation of the said delay has been filed along with the Revision Petition. In paragraphs no.3 to 5 of the said application, the following explanation, in the narrative form, has been furnished:
“3. That the impugned order is dated 21.07.2015. Arguments were heard on 21.07.2015. Thereafter order was passed. Certified copy of the order was not received in the DDA. The counsel for the petitioner Shri P.K. Aggarwaal down loaded copy of the order from the inter-net and sent the file to Sr. Law Officer (Housing) vide his noting dated 13.8.2015. Shri P.K. Aggarwal submitted the file at Tis Hazari courts on 17.8.2015. The file was received in the office of Sr. Law Officer (Housing) on 18.8.2015. Sr. Law Officer vide his noting dated 18.8.2015 sent the file to Sr. Law Officer (Contract). On the same day the file was sent to Director (Housing). On 18.8.2015 itself Director (Housing) marked the file to Dy. Director (Housing). Dy. Director (Housing) made a note on 24.8.2015 and sent the file to Assistant Director EHS (Housing) for preparing a detailed note and discussing the matter with Shri P.K. Aggarwal, who conducted the matter before the Hon’ble State Commission. Assistant Director (Housing) discussed the matter with Shri P.K. Aggarwal and thereafter prepared a detailed note on 1.9.2015 and sent the file to Dy. Director EHS (Housing). Dy. Director EHS (Housing) sent the file to Director (Housing) on 3.9.2015. Director (Housing) then sent the file to Commissioner (Housing). The file was received in the office of Principal Commissioner (Housing). Principal Commissioner (Housing) vide his noting dated 5.9.2015 made a note to the effect for calling a meeting on suitable date and time for discussion. It appears that the file was tagged with some other files. However, the file was received by Director (Housing) on 5.10.2015. He sent the file to Dy. Director (Housing) on 5.10.2015. Dy. Director (Housing) vide his noting dated 6.10.2015 sent the file to Assistant Director EHS (Housing). Assistant Director EHS (Housing) on the same day sent the file to dealing Assistant. As the dealing Assistant had not placed the matter
