NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/3095/2013

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY - Complainant(s)

Versus

CHANCHAL KUMAR - Opp.Party(s)

M/S. ARTI BANSAL & ASSOCIATES

12 May 2014

ORDER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
 
REVISION PETITION NO. 3095 OF 2013
 
(Against the Order dated 14/05/2013 in Appeal No. 265/2012 of the State Commission Delhi)
1. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
INA,VIKAS SADAN.
NEW DELHI
...........Petitioner(s)
Versus 
1. CHANCHAL KUMAR
S/O LATE SHRI BADRI, R/O H-37, KIRTI NAGAR,
NEW DELHI - 15
...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. DR. S.M. KANTIKAR, MEMBER

For the Petitioner :
Ms. Arti Bansal, Advocate
For the Respondent :
Mr. R. K. Bharti, Advocate with
Respondent (in person)

Dated : 12 May 2014
ORDER

 

JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)

 

1.      Learned counsel for the parties heard.

2.      Learned State Commission dismissed the appeal on the ground that there was delay of 114 days.  The petitioner had explained the

-2-

delay in para 4 of the application for condonation of delay before the State Commission, which is reproduced:

“4. That after receipt of order, the legal opinion was sought and finally on 17.01.2012 a final decision of filing the appeal was taken.  Thereafter on 08.02.2012 the decision of marking of the case to the penal advocate was taken and the file was given on 10.02.2012.  The counsel immediately prepared and returned back the file on 16.02.2012 for signing the appeal and providing the FDR.  The different approval for the same was taken and finally the appeal is filed.  The delay in filing the appeal is only 69 days due to administrative reasons mentioned above.”

 

3.      Most importantly, in para 3 of the application for condonation of delay, it is stated that impugned order was not served upon the appellant.

4.      We have called the report of the Secretary, District Forum wherein it was admitted that the entry of the date mentioned free certified copy sent to the petitioner(DDA) did not find place in dispatch register.  It is thus clear that the registry in the District Forum is not working properly.  Copy of this order be sent to the President, District

 

 

-3-

Forum with the direction to take action against the concerned person and such like mistake should not happen in the future.

5.      Keeping in view all these facts and circumstances of the case, we condone the delay before the State Commission. It must be mentioned here that the petitioner himself admitted that there was 69 days’ delay but no lucid excuse is forthcoming.

6.      The revision petition is allowed subject to payment of Rs.10,000/- as costs, which be paid to Mr. Chanchal Kumar through demand draft directly and the parties are directed to appear before the State Commission for further proceedings on 3.7.2014.  The State Commission is also directed to expedite the case and it should be disposed of within three months from 3.7.2014 onwards with the report to the Registrar of this Commission.  

           

 

 
......................J
J.M. MALIK
PRESIDING MEMBER
......................
DR. S.M. KANTIKAR
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.