Jagwanti Nandal vs H.U.D.A.

THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 25.04.2011 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, ''the State Commission '') in Appeal No. 585 of 2009 - HUDA Vs. Smt. Jagwanti Nandal by which, appeal filed by the OP was allowed and order of District Forum allowing complaint was set aside.

BRIEF facts of the case are that complainant filed complaint before District Forum and learned District Forum while allowing complaint directed OP/respondent to refund Rs.6,47,000/ - to the complainant along with 9% p.a. interest. Appeal filed by the OP was allowed by learned State Commission vide impugned order and complaint was dismissed against which, this revision petition has been filed along with application for condonation of delay of 980 days. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner on application for condonation of delay.

LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that delay occurred as family members were in shock and could not arrange documents and engage Advocate; hence, delay may be condoned.

PARAGRAPH 2 of the application for condonation of delay runs as under: ''''That it is humbly submitted that there is some delay in filing the present Revision Petition as the counsel for the petitioner who appeared before the Hon ''ble State Commission had not inform the allowing of the first appeal of the petitioner and later on when the petitioner inquired about his case, he found the same was allowed on 25.04.2011. After the allowing of first appeal filed by the respondent, petitioner, and family members were in shock and could not arrange the documents and advocate to file the present Revision Petition before this Hon ''ble Court. The delay caused in filing this application is bonafide and deserves to be condoned ''''.

No reason has been mentioned in the application for condonation of delay except the reason that family members were in shock and could not arrange documents and engage Advocate for filing Revision Petition.

THERE is no explanation at all for condonation of 959 days delay as per office report and application for condonation of delay is liable to be dismissed on the basis of judgment of 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. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed at admission stage with no order as to costs.