GEETA SHARMA Vs. AAYUKTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against order dated 10.4.1996 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (For short District Forum) Shajapur in Complaint Case No.8/1991.

(2.) The facts of the case leading to the complaint filed by appellant in District Forum Shajapur are that respondent prepared a scheme for allotment of houses after construction by them and invited applications for allotment. In this scheme at S. No.3, the type of houses described were valued at approximately Rs.60,000/-. Appellant applied for registration and deposited Rs.5,000/- on 1.7.1988 in the account of respondent. Respondent vide their letter dated 15.12.1988 asked her to deposit Rs.10,000/-. Accordingly appellant deposited Rs.10,000/- on 11.4.1988. It is important to record here that appellant is registered at No.3/104 on 1.7.1988. The scheme was later on taken over by "grah Nirman Mandal". On 1.7.1988 the "grah Nirman Mandal" informed appellant that the cost of the house would be Rs.1,22,000/- and asked for the consent of appellant to buy the house. In her complaint before District Forum, the appellant complained before the District Forum and prayed for allotment of house to her, as per terms and conditions of Gramin A was Mandal and rent at Rs.700/- per month after the scheduled date of completion of house i. e. after two years of registration. District Forum after hearing parties passed the order in which the District Forum considered all the aspects of the case and then allowed the complaint partly. Not satisfied with the order present appeal has been filed by appellant.

(3.) We have heard both the parties and have also perused the record of the case. Counsel for the respondent have drawn our attention to the fact that the appeal was time barred as it was filed almost 4 months after the order. Perusal of the record shows that order of the District Forum was pronounced in the presence of the Counsel for both parties. As such there is no excuse for the delay. Appellant's plea of illness cannot be accepted as valid since her Advocate could have always filed the appeal. Similarly, no one can be blamed for the delay in obtaining certified copy. That was appellant's problem and her mistake. We are, therefore, of the opinion that appellant has failed to give any valid reason for such a long delay in filing appeal and therefore appeal can be disallowed on this short point only. In addition we also find that order of the District Forum is a detailed one in which all aspects have been considered. Order is just and proper and appeal has no merit. We are, therefore, of the opinion that appeal must be dismissed.