HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. KAMLESH RANI

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 in August 1986 but the possession of which was given after a delay of twelve years. It is in these circumstances, a complaint was filed before the District Forum, who allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to pay interest @ 10% p. a. on the entire deposited amount from after two years from the date of deposit, i. e. , 20. 8. 1998 to 20. 3. 1998, i. e. , the date of offer of possession, along with Rs. 70,000 being the cost of escalation. Aggrieved by this order an appeal was filed before the State Commission without complying with the second proviso of Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, despite repeated opportunities the appellant did not comply with the requirement of law, i. e. , second proviso of Section 15 of CPA, spread over for a period of almost three years, in view of which the State Commission dismissed the Appeal. Aggrieved by this order this revision petition has been filed before us with a delay of 538 days. An application for condonation of delay has also been filed in which following grounds for condonation of delay have been taken:

(3.) BY any standard, this plea cannot be taken as sufficient explanation of condonation of delay of 538 days especially in view of the fact that this figure has been arrived at after setting-off 90 days for filing revision petition. It is not a delay of few days/few weeks, it is case of a delay of almost over an year and a half, in view of which we are unable to condone the delay as not been sufficiently explained, hence the application for condonation of delay is dismissed.