JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER

1.      There is a delay of 230 days in filing this revision petition.  The petitioner has explained the delay in filing this revision petition.  His main plea is that he was lying sick.  Following averments were made in the application for condonation of delay.  The petitioner is a chronic diabetic and BP patient. He has stones in his gall bladder and kidney for a long time.  These ailments aggravated in the year 2010-11.  He is aged about  61 years.  Due to this ailment, he suffered frequent fatigue and as a result he could not attend his daily chores.  Medical reports have been attached to support his case.  Again, he could not contact his counsel due to medical condition.  The petitioner changed his address and could not receive the free copy sent by the fora. 

2.      We have perused the medical report submitted by him.  These documents go to show that he is suffering from these ailments for the last 15-20 years.  These ailments did not crop up recently.  The learned counsel for the petitioner admitted that he was never admitted in any hospital.  The petitioner has not explained about his relatives, who could have helped him in filing the revision petition.  Again, he has not mentioned from which address to which address he had shifted.  The application is vague and evasive and the learned counsel for the petitioner also denied the knowledge about the same.  A person who can go to the hospital, every now and then, cannot be said to be unable to attend the Commission proceedings.  This is not a sufficient ground.  The advocate who was contesting the case for him at State level could have helped him in filing this revision petition.  The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is a special Act, which prescribes summary procedure and its own period of limitation.  General law of limitation is not applicable to this case.  There is inadequate delay and it cannot be condoned.  This view stands emboldened by the following authorities.

3.      In Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), it has been held that “It is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if this Court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the Consumer Foras”. 

4.  See also the laws laid down in Balwant Singh  Vs.  Jagdish Singh & Ors.,   (Civil Appeal no. 1166 of 2006),  decided  by the Apex Court on 08.07.2010;  Bikram Dass Vs. Financial Commissioner and others AIR 1977 Supreme Court 1221 and in Ram Lal and Others v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361.

5.      Now let us turn to the merits of this case.  There was an agreement between the parties that the petitioner-complainant, Akbar Ali would purchase a flat from the opposite party-M/s Savitha Estates & Resorts India Pvt. Ltd.  The opposite parties sold undivided share of the land to the complainant on 8.5.2000.  The possession of the flat was delivered on 16.11.2000.  The grievance of the complainant was that there was incomplete work in many areas.  It was alleged by the complainant that opposite party had not completed 14 items of work as mentioned in the complaint.  The said fact was admitted by the opposite party as per letter dated 16.11.2000 exhibit A4.  The opposite parties explained that as per letter exhibit A4, only five items were left to be completed.  Those incomplete works were also completed subsequently according to the opposite parties.  The flat was ready and the complainant suppressed the fact of due payment of Rs.1,18,500/- to the opposite party as demanded by it.  The said amount was to be paid to the CMDA and as per the condition clause 4(c) in the agreement, it was mentioned that Rs.2,32,080/- were to be retained by the party for the payment to the CMDA towards regularization charges which were to be paid before taking possession of the flat.  It is explained that the possession of the flat was given to the complainant on 16.11.2000 as per exhibit A4.  The complainant has paid only a sum of Rs.1,13,500/- towards regularization charges by leaving the arrears of Rs.1,18,500/- as per the document Ex. A-4.

6.      Consequently, the complainant is liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,18,500/-  As a matter of fact, in the year 2004, a suit was filed by the opposite party claiming the arrears of Rs.1,18,500/-.  However, that suit filed by the opposite party was dismissed observing that only after completing the unfinished work of the complainant’s flat, that amount could be claimed.  Before us, the petitioner has contended that he has completed all the incomplete work.  The complainant has not filed the report of an expert which may go to show that there were defects in the said premises.  Moreover, about  12 years have already elapsed.  It is also surprising to note that the complainant has not disclosed all these facts in his complaint.  Under the circumstances, the orders passed by both the fora below cannot be faulted.  Learned counsel for the petitioner also did not pick up a conflict with the construction work.  He pointed out that the regularization work is a different aspect but he could not draw our attention that the complainant is to pay money for the same.

          The complainant cannot get rid of paying the money in filing this revision petition.  The complainant is directed to pay the residuary amount and in case the said premises are not regularized, it will become another ground for invoking the jurisdiction of consumer fora .  As per the agreement, he was supposed to pay regularization charges to the opposite party.  The cause of action in his favour will arise only if there is a deficiency on the part of the opposite party.

          The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed.