Challenge in this Execution Revision Petitioner under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the “Act”) is to the order dated 16.03.2017 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (for short “the State Commission.”) in RP No. 07 of 2017.  

2.       The State Commission while dismissing the Revision Petition as barred by limitation, placed reliance on Bikram Dass Vs. Financial Commissioner & Ors. AIR 1977 Supreme Court 1221, R.B. Ramlingam Vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari 2009 (2) Scale 108 and Ram Lal & Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361 and observed as follows:-

          “It is no where alleged specifically in application that when his counsel informed him after decision of the case.  The explanation given in the application is not plausible.  The application is vague and indefinite and cannot be relied upon.  It is well settled preposition of law that if delay is not explained properly the same cannot be condoned.

          A period of 90 days has been provided for filing revision petition against the order of the District Forum.  As per regulation 14 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005 (in short “regulations”) revision petition can be filed within 90 days from the date of order of the date of receipt of order.  In the present case revision petition was filed after 90 days.  The above-said regulation permits State Commission to entertain revision petition after the expiry of the period of 90 days if it is satisfied that there is “Sufficient cause” for not filing revision within the prescribed period.  The expression of sufficient cause has not been defined in the Act and it can vary from facts and circumstances of each case.”

3.       Facts in brief are that the District Consumer Forum, Faridabad disposed of the Complaint vide order dated 02.03.2012 directing the Estate Officer, HUDA to provide the details of the extension fee mentioned in Memo. No. 38555 dated 10.10.2007 and subsequent demands, if any, and further held that the demand should be in accordance with the order of the Administrator, HUDA dated 17.12.2002.  When the Respondent Authority failed to comply with the order passed by the District Forum, the Complainant preferred Execution Application No. 137 dated 17.10.2012 stating that on account of the failure of the Authority to comply with the order dated 17.12.2002 passed by the Administrator, HUDA and the order dated 02.03.2012 passed by the District Forum, the Revision Petitioner suffered undue harassment and was forced to pay some excess amount.  Hence the Petitioner approached the District Forum praying for refund of the amount and seeking direction to the Authority to provide the details of the calculation.

4.       Ld. Counsel for the Revision Petitioner submitted that the District Forum, without taking into consideration that the detailed calculations were not provided by the Authority, dismissed the Execution Application filed by the Revision Petitioner/Decree Holder merely on the statement given by the Judgement Debtor that the entire amount demanded was deposited by the Revision Petitioner herein.  Aggrieved by the said order dated 15.05.2015 the Petitioner herein preferred an Appeal before the State Commission, which for the afore-noted reasons dismissed the Application seeking condonation of delay.

5.       Taking into consideration that the Decree Holder/Revision Petitioner is the original Complainant before the District Forum and that there is a specific pleading in his Application seeking condonation of delay that the Petitioner was not aware of the order passed as he was not informed by his Counsel and that it was only in the month of December, 2016 when he visited the District Forum that he came to know about the order in Execution and applied for a certified copy on 22.12.2016 which was delivered to him on 28.12.2016 and immediately on receipt of the copy of the order, he had contacted this present Counsel for filing of the Appeal, we are of the considered view that the delay can be condoned keeping in view the fact that it is an Execution Appeal preferred by the Original Complainant and having regard to the equities and principles of natural justice and also the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Nagaland V. Lipok Ao (2005) 3 SCC 752 and and N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123.

6.       For all the afore-noted reasons this ERP bearing No. 07 of 2017 is allowed setting aside the order of the State Commission and the matter is remanded back to the State Commission to decide the same on merits as expeditiously as practicable but not later than six months from the date of the first appearance of the parties. Both the parties shall appear before the State Commission on 03.10.2018.