HUDA Vs. DR. RAJ KUMAR GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is by way of second round of litigation before this Commission. On an earlier occasion; the HUDA had filed an appeal being F.A. No. 41/99 before this Commission feeling aggrieved by the order dated 21.12.1998 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in complaint case No. 58/96. This Commission disposed of the said appeal vide order dated 21.4.2006 and remanded back the matter to the State Commission only on limited question in regard to the escalation of price due to intervening period during which the actual vacant physical possession was not handed over to the complainant/respondent. The observations made in the said order by this Commission are as unden -

(2.) THE impugned order has been made by the State Commission in terms of the directions given by this Commission in the said order. By the impugned order, the State Commission going by the material produced on record, i.e., the affidavit filed on behalf of the complainant and affidavit of Mr. Narinder Singh Yadav, Estate Officer, HUDA, Faridabad and after recording the statements of the Counsel appearing for the parties separately has made the following order:

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the said order, the HUDA has again come in appeal before us. There is delay of 192 days in filing the present appeal and an application for condonation of delay has been filed on behalf of the appellant. We have considered the grounds/reasons set up in the said application and we find that the said grounds/reasons are routine and do not, in any way, explain the undue delay in filing the appeal before this Commission. We are, therefore, not inclined to condone the delay in this case, more particularly so, when we have found that the order passed by the State Commission is entirely based on the affidavit filed by the Estate Office, HUDA, Faridabad itself and the statements of the Counsel for HUDA recorded by the State Commission.