SUHINDER KAUR Vs. OMAXE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this execution revision petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 18.3.2014 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh in F.A No.82 of 2014 whereby the State Commission dismissed the appeal under section 27A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 filed by the petitioners against the order dated 20.1.2014 passed by the District Forum in C.P No.90 of 2013 dismissing the execution application filed by the petitioners in consumer complaint No.470 of 2012.

(2.) There is a delay of 68 days (67 days as per the note put up by the Registry) in filing this execution revision petition beyond the prescribed period of 90 days for which the petitioners have filed I.A. No.5775 of 2014 praying for condonation for delay in question.

(3.) We have heard learned Shri Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioners on the application for condonation of delay and perused the application. Learned counsel has contended that the delay in question is only of 68 days which can be condoned keeping in view the reasons mentioned by the petitioners in their application as also the judgement of the National Commission in the case of Meena, Keshave Bansal Vs. Union of India & Ors., 2014 1 CPJ 565 (NC)] whereby this Commission has condoned even the long delay of 2167 days and decided that matter on merits. Relying on this judgement, learned counsel submitted that the present execution revision petition can also be considered and decided on merits after condoning a small period delay of 68 days.