Tribunals and Commissions(2013) 09 NCDRC CK 0046

AMAR NATH BANSAL vs National Metropolitan/Capital Area Scheme/Plan And Secretary Urban Development Trust

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission · Decided on 13 September 2013 · Citation: 2013 0 NCDRC 861 : 2013 4 CPR 195

HON’BLE JUDGES
K.S.CHAUDHARI , B.C.Gupta J.

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 648 words
1.

THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/complainant against the order dated 05.11.2012 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan, Circuit Bench No.3, Jaipur (in short, ''the State Commission'') in Appeal No. 420/2010 - Amar Nath Bansal Vs. National Metropolitan & Anr. by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum dismissing complaint was upheld.

2.

BRIEF facts of the case are that complainant/petitioner was allotted plot No. D -89, Bhagat Singh Colony, Bhiwadi by Urban Improvement Trust and as per allotment letter dated 22.8.2008, construction was to be completed within a period of 10 years. As OP has not given possession of the plot inspite of depositing full price of the plot, complainant/petitioner filed complaint before District Forum alleging deficiency on the part of OP. OP/respondent contested complaint and submitted that possession has already been given on 10.4.1989 and site plan was also given on 7.8.1989, but as complainant has not carried out construction within a period of 2 years, this complaint has been filed to avoid penalty which may be imposed for non -construction and prayed for dismissal of complaint. District Forum after hearing both the parties dismissed complaint against which appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which this revision petition has been filed along with application for condonation of delay. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner at admission stage and perused record.

3.

PETITIONER has filed application for condonation of delay, but has not mentioned period of delay to be condoned. As per office report, there was delay of 134 days. In the application, petitioner submitted that as petitioner was diagnosed with Type II Diabetes Mellitus, acute coronary syndrome and surgery was done on 11.1.2013 and money was spent in treatment, revision petition could not be filed in time. Further, it was alleged that petitioner recovered in health and got papers in May, 2013 and after that he contacted Advocate and filed revision petition. Revision petition has been filed on 4.7.2013. As per discharge certificate by Medanta, the Medicity hospital, petitioner was admitted in the hospital on 11.1.2013 and discharged on 14.1.2013 and petitioner was further directed to review with the doctor after one week. In such circumstances, it can be inferred that petitioner recovered latest by 20.1.2013, but this revision petition has been filed on 4.7.2013 meaning thereby after 5? months of recovery. No reasonable explanation has been given for condonation of delay in the application.

4.

AS there is inordinate delay of 134 days, this delay cannot be condoned in the light of the judgment passed by the Hon''ble Apex Court and the National Commission in (1) (2010) 5 SCC 459 - Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation and Anr.; (2) (2012) 3 SCC 563 - Office of The Chief Post Master General and Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. and Anr. and (3) 2012 (2) CPC 3 (State Commission) - Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority. As application for condonation is liable to be dismissed, revision petition filed by the petitioner being barred by limitation is bound to be dismissed.

5.

AS far as merits of the case are concerned, petitioner submitted that he has not been given possession of the allotted plot, whereas respondent has submitted in reply that possession has already been given on 10.4.1989, whereas complaint has been filed in the year 2008 meaning thereby almost after 19 years which is apparently time barred. Learned State Commission has not committed any error in dismissing appeal and learned District forum has also not committed any error in dismissing complaint.

6.

WE do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order and revision petition is liable to be dismissed. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed at admission stage with no order as to costs.