Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/20/2018

Jaipur Development Authority - Complainant(s)

Versus

Lalit Taneja s/o Bhagwan Das Taneja 1/1 Smt. Asha Taneja w/o Lat. Lalit Taneja - Opp.Party(s)

Manish Kumar

06 Apr 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 20/2018

 

Jaipur Development Authority (Zone 13) Jaipur Development Authority Bhagwan Das Road, Indira Circle, JLN Marg, Jaipur.

Vs.

Sh.Lalit Taneja s/o Bhagwan Das Taneja (now deceased ) his Lrs Smt.Asha Taneja & two ors. all r/o House No. 400, Gurunanakpura, Rajapart, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur.

 

Date of Order 6.4.2018

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

 

Mr. Ajayraj Tantia counsel for the appellant

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

 

This appeal is filed against the order passed by the

2

 

District Forum, Jaipur 4^th dated 28.7.2017 whereby the claim is allowed against the appellant. The matter has come upon application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act as the appeal is filed with delay of 131 days.

 

Heard the counsel for the appellant and perused the application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act.

 

The contention of the appellant is that order was passed on 28.7.2017, copy was received on 3.8.2017 which was sent to Legal Department and on 17.10.2017 it was decided that the appeal be filed and sanction for FDR was accorded on 14.11.2017 and finally the appeal was filed on 9.1.2018. All these contentions only gives dates of a particular action but no reason has been assigned that why Legal Department took about 2 ½ months for the decision to file the appeal or sanction for FDR took about month to be given and reliance could rightly be placed on IV (2016) CPJ 178 (NC) Reliance General Insurance Vs. Pariyojna Nirman Private Ltd. and 2017 NCJ 947 (NC) Sunita Vs. Bajaj Allianz.

 

In view of the above there is no reasonable and sufficient

3

 

ground to condone the extra ordinary delay of 131 days and appeal is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.

 

The contention of the appellant is that order dated 27.1.2009 is challenged and admittedly the complaint is filed on 26.9.2011 which is time barred.

 

A bare perusal of the complaint goes to show that the consumer has also asked the possession of Plot No. 104 and in view of IV (2012) CPJ 12 (SC) Meerut Development Authority Vs. Mukesh Kumar Gupta it has been held that if opposite party is failure to deliver possession of the property it gives rights to recurring cause of action and cannot be held time barred.

 

The other contention of the appellant is that consumer has give his consent to have plot in Rohini Nagar 1^st . Be that may be the case these all contentions have not been raised before the Forum below inspite of the service and time sought for filing the reply the appellant has not chosen to file the same and on 1.11.2012 opportunity of filing reply was closed by the Forum below and this order has not been assailed by the

4

 

appellant. Further more in appeal also it has not been disclosed that why inspite of opportunity the reply was not submitted before the Forum below.

 

In view of the above, there is no merit in this appeal and liable to be dismissed on ground of delay as well as on merits.

 

(Nisha Gupta) President

nm