V P SANT Vs. CHAIRMAN DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision Petition raises the question of enforcement of the rule relating to the filing of the certified copy of the order appealed against.

(2.) THE Complainant/Petitioner herein pre-ed on 22nd February, 1993 a memorandum of appeal to the State Commission, Delhi against the orders dated 20th November, 1992 and 2nd February, 1993 of the District Forum-II Delhi. Rule 8 of the Delhi Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 requires that each memorandum shall be accompanied by the certified copy of the order of the District Forum appealed against and such of the documents, as may be required to support grounds of objections mentioned in the memorandum. The Petitioner filed alongwith the memorandum, Photostat copies of the certified copies of the orders of the District Forum instead of the certified copies he appeal came up for hearing, the deficiency was pointed out and the Petitioner moved on 1st December, 1993 an application for leave to file the original certified copies and for condonation of delay. By the impugned order date 18th April, 1994 the State Commission, Delhi opined that there is not sufficient ground to condone the delay and dismissed the application consequently the appeal was dismissed as Barred by limitation.

(3.) THE proceedings under the Act are time bound and are not required to be shackled with the niceties and technicalities of the procedure. The rigid adherence to the technicalities of the procedure would defeat the scheme, scope and purpose of the Act. The Redressal Agencies are not Civil Courts which are bound by the Code of Civil Procedure. A new procedure is evolved by the Act to provide relief to a common man who is a consumer within the meaning of the Act, expeditiously and without going into the technicalities of procedure.