The State Commission has dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay. The delay in filing the appeal was 116 days which was over and above the statutory period of 30 days given for filing the appeal before the State Commission. Under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 the consumer fora is required to decide the complaint/appeal within 90 days of its filing and in case the evidence is required to be taken, within 150 days. The delay of 116 days is nearly 4 times over the statutory period given for filing the appeal cannot be condoned without showing sufficient cause. The State Commission has given sufficient cause. We agree with the same. The State Commission has dismissed the appeal on merits as well. Possession, which was supposed to be handed over to the respondent on 08th July, 2000, was delivered to him on 07.6.2003. Electricity and water supply was given to the premises in the year 2007. We agree with the decision taken by the State Commission on merit as well. Finding recorded by the State Commission is a finding -3- of fact which cannot be interfered with in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in Revisional jurisdiction this Commission can interfere only if the State Commission exercises jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. We agree with the findings recorded by the State Commission and do not find that there has been any material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction on either of accounts mentioned in Section 21 of the Act. Dismissed. RP No.3110/2009 The State Commission has dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay. The delay in filing the appeal was 116 days which was over and above the statutory period of 30 days given for filing the appeal before the State Commission. Under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 the consumer fora is required to decide the complaint/appeal within 90 days of its filing and in case the evidence is required to be taken, within 150 days. The delay of 116 days is nearly 4 times over the statutory period given for filing the appeal cannot be condoned without showing sufficient cause. The State Commission has given sufficient cause. We agree with the same. The State Commission has dismissed the appeal on merits as well. Possession, which was supposed to be handed over to the respondent on 08th July, 2000, was delivered to him on 07.6.2003. Electricity and water supply was given to the premises in the year 2007. We agree with the decision taken by the State Commission on merit as well. Finding recorded by the State Commission is a finding of fact which cannot be interfered with in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in Revisional jurisdiction this Commission can interfere only if the State Commission exercises jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. We agree with the findings recorded by the State Commission and do not find that there has been any material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction on either of accounts mentioned in Section 21 of the Act. Dismissed.
......................JASHOK BHANPRESIDENT
......................B.K. TAIMNIMEMBER | | 
