PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 17.03.2016 passed by the U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow (in short “the State Commission) in Complaint No. 275 of 2015 – Ali H. Zaidi Vs. Lucknow Development Authority by which, complaint was dismissed at admission stage as barred by limitation. 2. Brief facts of the case are that Complainant/appellant was allotted flat by OP/respondent in December, 1990. Complainant paid more price than the price fixed for flat and was harassed regularly and ultimately washanded over possession of flat on 29.11.2001. Complainant approached State Information Commission for redressal of his grievance and his case was dismissed by order dated 21.10.2007. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before State Commission along with application for condonation of delay. OP resisted complaint and submitted that flat was allotted on approximate price of Rs.2,30,000/- and final determined amount was called from complainant by repeated letters, but he did not deposit amount, though, possession has been handed over on 29.11.2001. Denying any deficiency on their part, prayed for dismissal of complaint as barred by limitation. Learned State Commission after hearing both the parties, dismissed complaint as barred by limitation against which, this appeal has been filed. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant at admission stage and perused record. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that inspite of reasonable explanation for condonation of delay, learned State Commission committed error in dismissing complaint as barred by limitation; hence, appeal be admitted. 5. Perusal of complaint reveals that as per complainant, cause of action arose on allotment of flat and continued to arise upto 21.10.2007, when matter was decided by State Information Commission. In application for condonation of delay, it was pleaded that in October, 2007, complainant fell ill and was diagnosed with prostate cancer at All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi (AIIMS) as per certificate dated 27.8.2009. It was further pleaded that after operation of prostate cancer, other complications cropped and had to go for prolonged treatment at Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Institute and Research Centre, New Delhi. It was further pleaded that later on Pancreatic Cancer was diagnosed as per certificate dated 22.2.2012 and he is undergoing treatment. He is 74 years old person so; delay in filing complaint may be condoned. 6. Admittedly, the complaint was filed in 2015, i.e., after almost 14 years of receiving possession and after almost after 8 years of decision by State Information Commission. In support of his illness, complainant annexed certificate of AIIMS dated 27.8.2009 according to which, he underwent TRUS and TRUS guided prostatic biopsy on 17.8.2009 and his surgery was fixed on 23.9.2009. He has not placed any document regarding his surgery and has placed report of Dr. Harsh Mahajan dated 25.1.2010 in which it was stated that prostate was operated in September, 2009. He also annexed report of Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Institute and Research Centre dated 13.2.2010 and one certificate of Dr. Rakesh Tandon and another certificate of same doctor dated 24.9.2012. He has not placed any document depicting his illness from October, 2007 to August, 2009 and has not placed any prescription and bills pertaining to medicines from August, 2009 to September, 2015. Learned State Commission has not committed any error in dismissing application for condonation of delay and dismissing complaint as barred by limitation. Learned Counsel for appellant has not placed any document depicting continuous treatment taken by complainant from October, 2007 till filing of complaint. 7. We do not find any illegality in the impugned order, as there is no reasonable explanation for condonation of inordinate delay of 8 years in filing complaint and appeal is liable to be dismissed at admission stage. 8. Consequently, appeal filed by the complainant is dismissed at admission stage. |
