Reserved

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

U.P. Lucknow.

Appeal  No.1922 of  2008

1- Lucknow Vikas Pradhikaran, Lucknow through

    Upadhyaksh.

2- Lucknow Vikas Pradhikaran, Lucknow through

    Schiv, Naveen Bhawan, Vipin Khand,

    Gomti Nagar, Lucknow.                            …Appellants.                                                                         

Krishna Kumar Pandey through  Sri R.N. Dubey,

11-186/0, Diesel Colony, behind Thana Alambagh,

Lucknow.                                                  …Respondent.

Present:-

1- Hon’ble Sri Rajendra  Singh, Presiding Member.

2- Hon’ble Sri Vikas Saxena, Member.

Sri S.N. Tiwari, Advocate for appellants.

Sri Vikas Agarwal, Advocate for respondent.

Date  23.6.2022

JUDGMENT

Per Mr. Rajendra Singh, Member: This appeal has been filed by the appellant Under Section 15 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the judgment and order dated 9.4.2008  passed by Ld. District Forum-I, Lucknow  in Complaint Case no.386 of 2003.  

This appeal has been filed with a delay of about 5 months and the appellant has moved an application for condonation of delay.

We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant Sri S.N. Tiwari and ld. Counsel for the  respondent Sri Vikas Agarwal. We have perused the pleadings evidence and application for condonation of delay.

The appellant has stated that the judgment was delivered in complaint case no.386 of 2003, Krishna

(2)

Kumar Pandey vs. Lucknow Development Authority on 9.4.2008 and copy of the judgment has been sent by his counsel on 8.5.2008 to the Law Department. Thereafter, it has been sent to the Estate Department. After that opinion of the retainer Sri Ajay Kumar Singh was taken. After so many steps ultimately the appeal has been filed on 7.10.2008. The appellant has stated that if delay is not condoned, it will adversely affect the different projects being carried out by the Authority. Therefore, the application for condonation of delay be accepted.  

The respondent’s counsel objected it and stated that the judgment has been delivered on 9.4.2008. The appellant was present in the proceedings before the ld. District Forum. Even then this appeal has been filed after a delay of about 5 months and as per difference case laws this delay cannot be condoned.

We have seen the judgment of the ld. District Forum passed on 9.4.2008 in which the appellant was present. We have seen the grounds mentioned in the application for condonation of delay. The delay is caused due to red tapism of the concerned department.

 The Consumer Protection Act 1986 was enacted to provide for better protection of the interests of consumers and for that purpose to make provision for the establishment of Consumers Councils and other authorities for the settlement of consumers’ disputes and for matters connected therewith (Preamble).

The Act Inter alia, seeks to promote and protect the rights of consumers such as-

(3)

1. right to be protected against marketing of goods   which are hazardous to life and property;
2. right to be informed about the quality, quantity, potency, purity, standard and price of goods to protect the consumer against unfair trade practices;
3. right to be assured, wherever possible, access to variety of goods at competitive prices;
4. right to be heard and to assured that customers’ interests will receive due consideration at appropriate forums.
5. Right to seek redressal against unfair practices or unscrupulous exploitation of consumers; and