M.L. SHARMA Vs. H.U.D.A.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS matter was originally listed as a revision petition but was subsequently converted into an Execution Appeal. As the impugned order was passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, in an Execution Proceeding, the matter is considered by this Commission as an appeal under Section 27A of the Consumer Protection Act. Excluding the permissible period of 30 days, delay of 60 days has occurred in filing this appeal. In explanation of the same, the appellant/Complainant has pointed out that this delay has occurred as he was under the impression that a revision petition would lie against the impugned order. We consider this explanation to be in line with the developments in the present proceedings, which started as revision petition and were converted into an execution appeal. The explanation is therefore, accepted and the delay of 60 days is, condoned. The matter is taken up for consideration on merit.

(2.) IN a brief but sharply focused order the State Commission has outlined the developments starting with consumer complaint No. 3/1991 being decided by Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in favour of the Complainant Shri M.L. Sharma on 8.7.1991. The operative portion of the order read as follows:

(3.) THE impugned order passed by the State Commission on 19.8.2011 has been made in yet another Execution Application filed by the Complainant Shri M.L. Sharma, after a gap of several years, in 2009 (E.A./758/2009). The State Commission has rejected the application observing that this is an attempt to stretch the order of the Commission beyond additional costs for the plot and to cover even extension fee. Extension fee was not the question involved in the main complaint and therefore, the O.P./H.U.D.A. was justified in claiming the same.