HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. NIRMALA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was the opposite party before the District Forum, where the respondent/complainant had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner.

(2.) Basic facts are not in dispute, that the complainant was allotted a plot for which certain amount was deposited, the possession of the plot could not be given to the complainant, in the light of which an alternative plot was allotted for which a revised price was demanded which the complainant was not willing to pay. It is in these circumstances that a complaint was filed before the District Forum, who allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to charge the same rate from the complainant of alternative plot at which the original plot was allotted, as also that any excess amount already paid by the complainant, was required to be adjusted. The petitioner was also directed to pay interest @18% p.a. on the deposited amount from the date of deposit till the date of possession. Aggrieved by this order an appeal was filed before the State Commission. Despite giving repeated opportunities spread over a period of almost three years, the petitioner did not comply with the second proviso of Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act in view of which as per provisions of law, the appeal was dismissed as not entertainable. Aggrieved by this order this revision petition has been filed before us with a delay of 443 days. An application for condonation of delay has also been filed in which following grounds for condonation of delay have been taken: "4. That after receiving of the copy of the impugned order dated 17.4.2006 the matter required to be dealt with at various department of the petitioner authority namely from the concerned Enstate Officer to legal branch ADA/DDA to the Head of the Department namely Administrator/Chief Administrator, then to branch incharge. then to the Assistant (Legal Branch) and again back via the same cumbersome lengthy procedure and marked to the Counsel and then again sent to the Legal Department by the Counsel as the appeal has to be vetted from the Legal Department.

(3.) That the procedure as mentioned above for which the delay occurred was beyond control because of bureaucratic hierarchical setup, which was neither deliberate nor intentional and the petitioner sincerely regret for the delay in filing revision petition.