NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/1475/2010

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY - Complainant(s)

Versus

GAURAV GARG & ORS. - Opp.Party(s)

MS. MADHUMITA BHATTACHARJEE

29 Jul 2010

ORDER


NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. 1475 OF 2010
(Against the Order dated 19/01/2010 in Appeal No. 706/2009 of the State Commission Delhi)
1. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYThe Vice-Chairman, Delhi Development Authority, D Block, 2nd Floor, Self Financing Scheme, Vikas Sadan, INANew Delhi - 110023Delhi ...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. GAURAV GARG & ORS.R/o. 155, Jasola Pocket 1New DelhiDelhi2. SMT. MONICA GARG, W/O. SH. GAURAV GARGR/o. 155, Jasola Pocket 1New DelhiDelhi3. BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD.Nehru PlaceNew DelhiDelhi4. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHITown HallDelhiDelhi ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN ,PRESIDENTHON'BLE MRS. VINEETA RAI ,MEMBER
For the Petitioner :MS. MADHUMITA BHATTACHARJEE
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 29 Jul 2010
ORDER

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.

          The State Commission has dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay.  There was a delay of 117 days in filing the appeal which was over and above the period of 30 days statutorily given for filing the appeal.  Under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Consumer foras are required to decide the cases in a summary manner within given time frame.  Case has to be disposed of within 90 days from the date of filing where no evidence is required to be taken and within 150 days where evidence is required to be taken.  The inordinate

delay of 117 days in filing the appeal could not be condoned by the State Commission without showing sufficient cause.  The State Commission in its order observed that only ground taken for condonation of delay is that the decision to file the appeal by the authorities took a long period which was wholly unsatisfactory ground for condonation of delay. 

On our direction, counsel for the petitioner has put on record the application filed by the petitioner before the State Commission seeking condonation of delay.  The only reason given is that in the process of taking the decision whether to prefer an appeal or not inordinate delay of 117 days has taken.  No reason has been given for condoning the delay.  On perusal of the application filed by the petitioner, we agree with the view taken by the State Commission that the petitioner did not make out a case to condone the delay of 117 days which was 4 times over the period given for filing the appeal.  Dismissed.



......................JASHOK BHANPRESIDENT
......................VINEETA RAIMEMBER