M/S. CHANDIGARH OVERSEAS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, HEAD OFFICE AT SCO NO. 196 Vs. KRISHAN KUMAR SAKLANI S/O LATE SH. B.R. SAKLANI, R/O, 95

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Revision Petitions, under Sec. 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the Act ), have been filed by M/s Chandigarh Overseas Private Limited and M/s Greenfield Sites Management Private Limited, Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 respectively in the Complaints under the Act, against the orders, dated 08.07.2015, 05.08.2015, 13.08.2015, 11.09.2015, 17.06.2015 and 11.09.2015 respectively, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh (for short the State Commission ) in Appeals No. 160/2015, 179/2015, 185/2015, 223/2015, 112/2015 and 224/2015 respectively. By the impugned orders, the State Commission has dismissed the Appeals as barred by limitation.

(2.) The Appeals had been preferred by the Petitioners/Opposite Parties, questioning the correctness and legality of the orders, dated 02.12.2014, 25.06.2014, 04.08.2014, 12.06.2014, 28.05.2014 and 05.09.2013 respectively, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums I and II at UT Chandigarh (for short the District Forums ) in different Complaint Cases preferred by the Respondents/Complainants. The District Forums, while allowing the Complaints, had, inter alia, directed the Opposite Parties to pay to the Complainants the buyback amount of Rs. 7,50,000.00 along with interest @ 9% per annum from the due date till realisation besides certain other reliefs towards delayed possession, compensation and litigation costs.

(3.) Being aggrieved, the Opposite Parties preferred the afore-noted Appeals before the State Commission, however, with a delay ranging between 132 to 326 days. Not being satisfied with the explanation furnished by the Petitioners herein, for the said delay, the State Commission, as noted above, has dismissed the Appeals as barred by limitation. Hence, the present Revision Petitions.