URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST vs VIJAY LAXMI

THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/OP against the impugned order dated 4.9.2012 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (in short, ''the State Commission '') in Appeal No. 1066 of 2012 - Urban Improvement Trust, Bikaner Vs. Smt. Vijay Laxmi by which, while dismissing appeal, order passed by learned District Forum was upheld.

BRIEF facts of the case are that complainant/respondent applied for purchase/allotment of plot in the scheme launched by OP/petitioner and deposited a sum of Rs.30,000/- on 24.5.2008. On 30.6.2008, complainant applied for cancellation of her application and requested not to include her name in lottery and further requested for refund of deposited amount. Even then, OP included complainant ''s name in the lottery drawn on 2.7.2008 and complainant was allotted plot and OP issued notice for balance amount of the plot. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint. OP did not appear before the District Forum and learned District Forum while allowing complaint, directed OP to refund Rs.30,000/- deposited by the complainant and further ordered that in case the amount is not refunded within one month, OP will pay 9% p.a. interest from the date of judgment. Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned State Commission on the ground of delay of 498 days as well as on merits against which, this revision petition has been filed. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner at admission stage and perused record.

LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that learned State Commission has committed error in dismissing appeal on merits also while dismissing it on the ground of delay; hence, petition be admitted.

IT is an admitted case of the petitioner that appeal was filed with an inordinate delay of 498 days. Learned State Commission has rightly observed that reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay are not sufficient for condoning the delay. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the application for condonation of delay filed by the petitioner before learned State Commission runs as under: "2. That the above matter was abrogated by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bikaner on 10.3.2011 and in this regard, information was not given to the Applicant/appellant by the Advocate of Bikaner. Due to said reason, the above order was not come in cognizance of Applicant/Appellant. 3. That the official enquiry of the Applicant/appellant, which appears every year in middle of month June - July, then, it was come to know that what is the status of the above matter. Then, this Applicant/appellant contacted to the office of the Advocate, whereon, such information was given by the Advocate at Bikaner that the above matter has already been abrogated on 10.3.2011 and application for obtaining the certified copy of the above order dated 20.7.2012 was filed by the Advocate and the certified copy of the order dated 20.7.2012 was filed by the Advocate and the certified copy of the order dated 20.7.2012 obtained to the Advocate, whereon, this Applicant/appellant discussed the matter from the higher officers of Trust and it was decided to file appeal in the above matter ".

It appears that application for certified copy of District Forum order dated 10.3.2011 was submitted on 20.7.2012 and after obtaining certified copy, appeal was filed. Apparently, no reason has been given in the application for condonation of delay and learned State Commission has not committed any error in rejecting application for condonation of delay and dismissing appeal on this count.

PERUSAL of impugned order reveals that order of District Forum has also been upheld on merits without any speaking order. Learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on judgment of Hon ''ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 86 of 2009 - Commissioner Nagar Parishad, Bhilwara Vs. Labour Court, Bhilwara and Anr. in which, Hon ''ble Apex Court observed that - "While deciding an application for condonation of delay, it is well settled that the High Court ought not to have gone into the merits of the case and would have only seen whether sufficient cause had been shown by the appellant for condoning the delay in filing the appeal before it. We ourselves have also examined the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act before the High Court and, in our opinion, the delay of 178 days has been properly explained by the appellant. That being the position, we set aside the impugned order of the High Court ".

IT is true that there was no necessity to observe in the impugned order that learned State Commission does not find any error in the impugned order. Even if, this finding has been given in the impugned order, we do not find any reason to remand the matter to learned State Commission, as the learned State Commission has rightly dismissed appeal on the count of inordinate delay of 498 days. Learned District Forum has only directed OP to refund Rs.30,000/- deposited by the complainant within a period of one month and further ordered that in case of non-payment, OP will be liable to pay 9% p.a. interest from the date of judgment. During the course of arguments, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that revision has been filed only to the extent of awarding 9% p.a. interest. OP should have returned Rs.30,000/- within a period of one month to the complainant from the date of passing of the order by the District Forum. Learned District Forum has not awarded any interest on this amount from the date of deposit till judegment, even then, unnecessary appeal before the State Commission and revision before this Commission has been filed.

CONSEQUENTLY , revision petition is dismissed at admission stage with no order as to costs.