Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/721/2019

Secretary Jaipur Development Authority - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sudhir Bardiya s/o Lat. Sardar Mal Bardiya - Opp.Party(s)

R.P.Gupta

26 Aug 2019

ORDER

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

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 721/2019

 

Secretary, Jaipur Development Authority, JLN Marg, Jaipur through Dy.Commissioner Zone 4

Vs.

Sudhir Bardia s/o Late Sardarmal Bardia, Shop No. 72, Johari Bazar, Jaipur.

 

Date of Order 26.8.2019

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

Hon'ble Mrs.Meena Mehta -Member

 

Mr. R.P.Gupta counsel for the appellant

 

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

 

The appeal is filed against the order passed by the District Forum, Jaipur 2^nd dated 5.3.2019 whereby the claim is

2

 

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 102 days.

 

The contention of the appellant is that advocate has not informed about the judgment and copy of the same could be obtained on 19.6.2019. Thereafter immediately appeal has been filed.

 

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned order.

 

The appellants have not appeared before the Forum below inspite of the service of notice meaning thereby that the appellants were having knowledge of the proceedings. The only reason which has been assigned in the application that advocate has not informed about the judgment but looking at the fact that appellant is the government authority having legal cell and the officer incharge must have been appointed in the case but nothing has been stated about the fact that why officer incharge had not informed the authority about the judgment. Hence, there is no sufficient ground to condone the delay.

3

 

The appellant has relied upon 2015 NCJ 321 (NC) Oriental Insurance Co. Vs. Milind Kashirao and I (2018) CPJ 116 (NC) Dileep Kumar Vs. Jaipur Development Authority where on sufficient ground delay was condoned but here in the present case nothing has been stated in the application about sufficient ground.

 

Further reliance has been placed on I (2014) CPJ 565 (NC) Meena Vs. Union of India where the private party relied on the counsel which is not the case here. The appellant is a government concern having legal officers inspite of this nothing has been done in the matter.

 

The appellant has further relied upon judgment passed by the National Commission in Revision Petition No. 3145/2016 Jaipur Development Authority Vs. Vimla Devi where on the facts of the case delay has been condoned.

 

In view of the fact that no reason has been assigned for the delay the application deserves to be dismissed. Reliance could be placed on II (2017) CPJ 347 (NC) Teluram Vs. S.S.Dudeja where the National Commission was of the view

4

 

that litigant to persue his litigation in deligent manner and he cannot shift entire blame for delay on its counsel.

 

In view of the above the application u/s 5 of the Limitation stands dismissed and so also the appeal.

 

(Meena Mehta ) (Nisha Gupta )

Member President

 

nm