ANITA SHARMA vs M P Housing Board

THIS revision petition is directed against the order of Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal (in short, "State Commission") dated 18.12.2014 whereby State Commission allowed the application of the respondent opposite party for condonation of delay of 21 days in filing of appeal.

MR . B.S.Sharma, Authorised Representative of the petitioner has contended that impugned order of the State Commission is not sustainable because the State Commission while condoning the delay in filing of appeal failed to appreciate that respondent opposite party has failed to show sufficient cause for delay in filing of appeal.

WE are not convinced with the above argument. On perusal of the impugned order, we find that State Commission condoned the delay in filing of appeal on the basis of the explanation given in the affidavit filed by the Executive Engineer of the Housing Board. The relevant observations of the State Commission are reproduced as under: "Keeping in view the various propositions laid down by the Apex Court and on examination of the instant case, we find that the delay caused by the appellant in filing the appeal is only of 21 days. The application for condonation of delay has been supported by the affidavit filed by the Executive Engineer of the M.P.Housing Board. For the reasons assigned in the application it appears that delay was mainly caused because of obtaining sanction / permission of the Authorities in the government body at different levels. Since the questions involved in the appeal are also of substantial nature and deserve to be decided on merits of the case, we deem it appropriate to take a liberal approach in considering the question of delay in filing the appeal. The delay of 21 days in the circumstances of the case cannot be held to be an inordinate delay caused deliberately with a view to unsettle the rights of respondent. Since it is not a case of gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bonafide, we allow this IA/1, application for condonation of delay. The delay caused in filing of appeal is condoned."

On reading of the above, it is clear that State Commission has condoned the delay after applying its mind to the explanation given for the delay. Thus, the impugned order cannot be faulted. There is no material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order which may call for interference by this Commission in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Revision petition is accordingly dismissed.