HOUSING BOARD HARYANA Vs. S L CHAUDHARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether an autonomous Board or Corporation is on a different footing than a private party, for seeking condonation of delay in filing an appeal under the proviso to Sec.15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 , is the significant threshold question in this case.

(2.) Since this appeal must founded on the bed-rock of the bar of limitation, it suffices to notice the relevant facts to the said issue alone. The respondent-Dr. S. L. Chaudhary had preferred a complaint before the District Forum, Hissar, claiming a variety or reliefs against the appellant-Board, pertaining to the allotment of premises under its High Income Group Scheme at Hissar. By its order dated the 14th May, 1990, the District Forum directed the payment of Rs.6,417/- by the appellant to the respondent.

(3.) On the appellant's own showing, a copy of the detailed order aforesaid of the District Forum was duly dispatched and received in the office of the Board on the 8th June, 1990. However, the present appeal against the said order has been preferred on the 9th August.1990, admittedly 30 days beyond the period prescribed under Sec.15 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ). Along with the appeal. an application expressly under Sec.5 of the T-imitation Act, for the condonation of delay, has been filed on behalf of the appellant-Board. In support thereof an affidavit of Shri S. P. Gupta, Chief Engineer, Housing Board, Haryana, has been attached. The somewhat bald and cryptic averments in the said affidavit are to the effect that after the order of the District Forum was pronounced, the papers were sent to the concerned officer at Chandigarh in the Head Office of the appellant-Board, for scrutiny and opinion. Thereafter sanction to file an appeal was taken from the competent authority, and, as such, in this process, the appeal could not be filed within limitation and a delay of 30 days was occasioned.