Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
C. Viswanath, Presiding Member and Ram Surat Ram Maurya, Member
HUDA Now HSVP and Anr. – Petitioners
versus
Rajesh Jindal – Respondent
Revision Petition No.399 of 2021
(Against the Order dated 04/07/2019 in Appeal No.119/2019 of the State Commission Haryana)
Decided on 8.11.2021
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioners:Mr. Pardeep Dahiya, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Inordinate delay remained unexplained showing carelessness in filing revision.
(2) Law of limitation is based upon sound public policy. In absence of bonafide reasons, application for condonation of delay be strictly construed.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21(b) (Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 58(1)(b)) – Revision Petition & Application for Condonation of Delay – Against Order dt. 04.07.2019 in Appeal passed by State Commission as petitioners were directed by State Commission to transfer disputed plot, execute conveyance deed in respondent’s name, to remove electric transformer, poles, etc., around the plot, to remove encroachment from the plot, give possession of the plot, to not charge any interest, penalty, extension, etc. and to pay interest @ 9% p.a. on amt. deposited by respondent and to pay Rs.5000/- as litigation cost - Revision filed with delay of 523 days – Counsels engaged did not file revision in time - No whisper that petitioners had sent any money to these advocates for necessary expenses for filing revision – Inordinate delay remained unexplained showing carelessness in filing revision - Supreme Court in H. Dohil Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Nahar Export Ltd., (2015) 1 SCC 680, held that law of limitation is based upon sound public policy. In absence of bonafide reasons, application for condonation of delay be strictly construed. (Paras 2, 3, 4 & 7)
Result: Revision is dismissed as time barred.
ORDER
Heard Mr. Pardeep Dahiya, Advocate, for the petitioners.
2. This revision has been filed against the order of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana at Panchkula, dated 04.07.2019, passed in First Appeal No. 119 of 2019 (arising out of the order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Rohtak, dated 05.04.2017, passed in, Consumer Complaint No. 512 of 2015), whereby, the complaint was allowed and the petitioners were directed (i) to transfer the disputed plot and execute conveyance deed in the name of the complainant, (ii) to remove electric transformer, poles, junction box, electric wires around the plot and to remove the encroachment from the plot and after removal of all the hindrance, give possession of the plot to the complainant, (iii) not to charge any interest, penalty, extension fee etc. from the complainant, (iv) to pay interest @ 9% per annum to the complainant on the amount deposited by him, from the date of deposit till actual physical possession and (v) to pay Rs.5000/- as litigation cost. Aforesaid directions had to be complied within one month, failing which, the opposite parties were directed to pay punitive damages of Rs.500/- per day from 06.05.2007, till handing over possession of the plot to the complainant and the appeal of the petitioners was dismissed.
3. The office has reported that the revision has been filed with delay of 523 days. The petitioners filed aforementioned application for condonation of delay, supported with an affidavit of Bharat Bhushan Gogia, HCS Estate Officer. It has been stated that the certified copy of the order dated 04.07.2019 was received in the office of Estate Officer on 15.08.2019. Same was sent to the office of Administrator, Haryana Shahri Vikas Pradhikaran, Rohtak vide Letter No.3256 dated 16.08.2019, for his decision. Chief Administrator, Haryana Shahri Vikas Pradhikaran, (legal Cell) vide email dated 28.11.2019, granted sanction for filing the revision against the order of State Commission dated 04.07.2019 and also directed to engage Sh. Alok Sangwan, Advocate, for filing the revision. The papers relating to the case were sent to Sh. Alok Sangwan, Advocate, through email dated 29.11.2019 and reminder email was sent on 04.12.2019. Legal Cell (HQ), vide email dated 11.12.2019, changed the advocate and appointed Sh. Vikrant Yugdutt Narulla, Advocate. Then all the scanned documents were sent to Sh. Vikrant Yugdutt Narulla, Advocate, through email on 06.01.2020. As required by the advocate, other documents were sent vide email dated 11.01.2020 and 14.01.2020.
4. Sh. Vikrant Yugdutt Narulla, Advocate, however did not file the revision. From 23.03.2020, lockdown was imposed in the Country. Estate Officer wrote a registered letter dated 23.12.2020 to Sh. Vikrant Yugdutt Narulla, Advocate, for filing the revision. Even then the revision was not filed. Then Chief Administrator, vide letter dated 17.03.2021, directed to engage Sh. Pradeep Dahiya, Advocate, for filing the revision and the papers were handed over to him. Who prepared the revision etc. and filed it on 12.04.2021.
5. There was shortage of staffs in the office of Deputy Superintendent and ADA/Legal Advisor, since 01.01.2020. Sh. Alok Sangwan, Advocate and Sh. Vikrant Yugdutt Narulla, Advocate, to whom, the papers were handed over for filing the revision, did not file the revision. In the meantime, lockdown was imposed, due to Covid-19 and the matter could not be pursued. Delay was caused for the reasons beyond the control of the petitioners and is liable to be condoned.
6. We have considered the explanation given for delay in filing the revision. Certified copy of impugned order dated 04.07.2019 was received on 08.08.2019 and the revision ought to have been filed till 06.11.2019. It was sent to Administrator, HSVP, Rohtak on 16.08.2019, who granted permission for filing the revision on 28.11.2019. More than three months was taken, in granting permission for filing the revision. There is absolu
