HUDA Vs. RANDHIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State Commission has dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation as well as on merits. There was a delay of 182 days in filing the appeal which was over and above the statutory period of 30 days given for filing the appeal. Under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 the Consumer Fora are required to decide the case in a summary manner within 90 days of its filing where no evidence is required to be taken and within 150 days where the evidence is required to be taken. The delay of 182 days could not be condoned without sufficient cause being shown. The State Commission in its order has held that the petitioner had failed to show any sufficient cause to condone the delay. We agree with the State Commission. Supreme Court in a number of cases has held that each day s delay has to be explained. Counsel for the petitioner has not filed the application which was filed before the State Commission seeking condonation of delay. In the absence of the same, we have no other option but to agree with the view taken by the State Commission.

(2.) Even on merits, we agree with the finding recorded by the State Commission. The respondent had paid extension fee up to the year 1989. After a delay of nine years, petitioner asked the respondent to revise the site plan and at that time, no extension fee was demanded by the respondent. In view of this the subsequent demand of extension fee of Rs. 62,976 vide letter dated 24.1.2002 was not justified. Dismissed. No costs.