M/S. KHALSA GYMNASTIC WORKS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM THROUGH ITS PARTNER SHRI JASJEET SINGH,603 PHOOL BAGH COLONY NEAR VICTORIA PARK COLONY, MEERUT UTTAR PRADESH Vs. CHETAK SPORTS COMPLEX (SOUTH) THROUGH ITS OFFICER IN CHARGE C/O. 56 APO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition, under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the Act ), has been filed by the sole Opposite Party in the Complaint under the Act, against the order dated 27.10.2016, passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Chandigarh (for short the State Commission ) in Miscellaneous Application No.775 of 2015 in/and First Appeal No. 426 of 2015. By the impugned order, the State Commission has dismissed the Application filed by the Petitioner for condonation of delay of 596 days in filing the Appeal. As a necessary corollary, the Appeal has also been dismissed as barred by limitation.

(2.) The Appeal had been filed by the Petitioner against the order dated 13.06.2013, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Bathinda (for short the District Forum ) in Complaint Case No. 152 of 2013, preferred by the Respondent/Complainant. By the said order, the District Forum, while allowing the Complaint, had directed the Petitioner to rectify the defects in the Tennis Court laid by the Petitioner to the entire satisfaction of the Complainant; obtain a satisfaction note from it to that effect, besides paying to it a sum of Rs.10,000.00 towards compensation and costs.

(3.) In order to provide training to its employees and maintain their fitness, on 19.09.2009 the Complainant, a Sports Unit of the Indian Army, had invited tenders for construction of a Synthetic Surface Floodlit with Chainlinked Fencing Tennis Court , on the existing Clay Tennis Court at Bathinda. After negotiations, the said work was assigned to the Petitioner, vide supply order dated 10.02.2010. As per the terms and conditions thereof, the Petitioner was required to furnish a bank guarantee to the extent of 5% of the total cost of the work as well as warranty for three years to repair the Tennis Court, if there was any defect, within seven days from the date of such complaint. With a considerable delay, the Petitioner completed the work, where-upon entire payment, amounting to Rs.12,03,568.00, was made to it, while retaining 5% of the amount, as agreed between the parties. Pursuant to the occurrence of some defects in the Tennis Court in the month of May, 2011, the Complainant requested the Petitioner to carry out necessary repairs. Despite several telephonic conversations and letters, the said defects were not removed by the Petitioner. The Complainant got assessed the cost for repairs of the Tennis Court, which was quantified at Rs.4,72,000.00. In the said background, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practise on the part of the Petitioner, the afore-noted Complaint came to be filed before the District Forum. The Complainant had prayed for a direction to the Petitioner to repair the Tennis Court as per the terms and conditions of the supply/work order; extend the warranty for a further period of three years; and pay sums of Rs.2,00,000.00 and Rs.50,000.00 as compensation and litigation costs respectively.