Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Dr. B.C. Gupta, Presiding Member and Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Member
Allahabad Development Authority —Petitioner
versus
Sharda Devi —Respondent
Revision Petition No.3154 of 2017
(Against the Order dated 18/01/2016 in Appeal No. 2610/2006 of the State Commission Uttar Pradesh)
Decided on 2.2.2018
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Ravinder, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
There is no justification for condonation of delay in filing the revision petition and the same deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986–Section21(b)–Real Estate- Respondent/complainant Sharda Devi had made an application to the petitioner/OP Allahabad Development Authority for allotment of a house- Alleged by the complainant that the flat was provided to her in a bad condition and no repair work was done- OP Authority raised a further demand of Rs.45,000/- from the complainant for the said flat, but complainant filed the consumer complaint in question, seeking cancellation of the additional demand- No justification for any modification in the impugned order of the State Commission- Revision Petition dismissed.
Held: The impugned order of the State Commission vide which the appeal before them against the order of the District Forum was dismissed in default was passed on 18.01.2016. On record, a certified copy of the order passed by the State Commission has been produced which says that free copy of the order dated 18.01.2016 of the State Commission was issued on 06.07.2016. Counted from that day as well, there is a delay of 367 days in filing the present revision petition. A perusal of the grounds mentioned in the application for condonation of delay, reveals that there is no cogent and convincing explanation for the delay in filing the revision petition. The petitioner authority is an established organisation and they are expected to keep track of the litigation pending before various courts/tribunals pertaining to their own interest. The OP Authority must have been equipped with a legal cell etc. whose job is to keep track of the litigation pending before various courts/tribunals. It is not understood, therefore, how they could not file the revision petition in time, despite the fact that free copy of the impugned order of the State Commission was issued to them on 06.07.2016.
On record, is a letter dated 12.08.2017 sent by Mr. Akhand Pratap Singh, Advocate addressed to the petitioner Authority by which the said Advocate advised that revision petition be filed before the National Commission against the impugned order dated 18.01.2016. The petitioner Authority have tried to say in the memo of revision petition that they engaged a new counsel after the order dated 18.01.2016 came to their knowledge and the said new counsel advised them to file the revision petition on 12.08.2017. The petitioners have tried to give this impression that they learnt about the order dated 18.01.2016 quite late, after which they engaged a new counsel. The petitioners have, however, not explained as to why they could not take necessary steps to file the petition when the certified copy of the order of the State Commission had been issued on 06.07.2016. It is evident, therefore, that there is no justification for condonation of delay in filing the revision petition and the same deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone.
Further, no explanation has been given for the non-appearance of the counsel for the petitioner/OP Authority before the State Commission on 18.01.2016. The State Commission have also observed that none had been appearing before them during the last few hearings. It is evident from these facts that there is no justification for any modification in the impugned order of the State Commission, as there is no infirmity or illegality in the same. The State Commission had no alternative but to dismiss the appeal before them for the non-appearance of the petitioner before them.
It may further be observed that as stated in the order of the District Forum, the petitioner had not been able to provide any justification before the District Forum for raising an additional demand of Rs.45,000/- against the complainant. It is evident, therefore, that the petitioner do not have any case on merits as well.
Based on the foregoing discussion, this revision petition is ordered to be dismissed in limine and the orders passed by the Consumer Fora below are upheld. There shall be no order as to costs. (Paras 7 to 11)
Result: Revision Petition dismissed.
Dr. B.C. Gupta, Presiding Member—This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 18.01.2016, passed by the U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal No. 2610/2006, “Secretary, Allahabad Development Authority versus Sharda Devi”, vide which, the said appeal was ordered to be dismissed in default.
2. The facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant Sharda Devi had made an application to the petitioner/OP Allahabad Development Authority for allotment of a house by making payment of Rs.15,000/- and that she was allotted house No. 41, MIG by the OP Authority on 21.03.90 in Stanley Road Colony. It was alleged by the complainant that the flat was provided to her in a bad condition and no repair work was got done. The complainant deposited an amount of Rs.1,27,000/- for the flat with the OP Authority as per their demand in two instalments. However, on 10.01.2002, the OP Authority raised a further demand of Rs.45,000/- from the complainant for the said flat. The complainant filed the consumer complaint in question, seeking cancellation of the additional demand of Rs.45,000/- and also to provide Rs.50,000/- as damages and Rs.3500/- as cost of litigation.
3. The Allahabad District Forum passed their order in the consumer complaint on 23.05.2006 and allowed the same by quashing the additional demand made by the OP Authority. The District Forum observed that the OP Authority had not been able to clarify before them about the basis of the additional demand of Rs.45,000/-. Being aggrieved against the order of the District Forum, the OP Authority challenged the same by way of appeal before the State Commission. However, the said appeal was dismissed in default on 18.01.2016 by the State Commission, as none appeared for them before the State Commission on that date. Being aggrieved against the order of the State Commission, the OP Authority is before this Commission by way of the present revision petition.
4. There is a delay of 367 days in filing the present revision petition. In the application for condonation of delay, it has been mentioned as follows:-
“2. That non-appearance of the appellant on 18.01.2016 was because of the fact that the previous counsel of the appellants lost interest in the matter and stopped appearing without any intimation to the appellant.
3. That the delay by the petitioner in filing the revision petition before this Ld. National Consumer Dispute Resolution Commission is due to the fact that the petitioner had to engage a new counsel after the previous counsel left the case without any intimation to them.
4. That delay in neither intentional nor deliberate but arises out of the facts and circumstances mentioned above.
5. That if this Hon’ble Court is pleased to condone the delay and hear the matter on merits no prejudice will be caused to the respondent whereas if the present petition is dismissed on the ground of delay, undue hardships will be caused to the petitioner, which cannot be compensated in terms of money.”
5. During arguments at the time of admission hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner Authority stated that the delay had occurred as they had to engage the services of a new counsel. The previous counsel engaged by them for contesting the case before the State Commission had stopped appearing without any notice to the OP Authority.
6. We have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us.
7. The impugned order of the State Commission vide which the appeal before them against the order of the District Forum was dismissed in default was passed on 18.01.2016. On record, a certified copy of the order passed by the State Commission has been produced which says that free copy of the order dated 18.01.2016 of the State Commission was issued on 06.07.2016. Counted f
