ESTATE OFFICER Vs. JASWANT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been filed by the appellant Estate Officer (Urban Estate Ludhiana) challenging the order dated 22nd September 2016 (allegedly pronounced on 10.3.2017) passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh ('the State Commission') in Miscellaneous Application No.3225 of 2015 in Consumer Complaint no.301 of 2015.

(2.) The brief facts relevant for the disposal of the present appeal are that the respondent was allotted MIG category flat number 806 by the appellant on 21st October 1985. On 8th November 1985 re-allotment letter was issued to the complainant allotting him flat number 919 costing Rs.67,748/-. Possession letter was also issued on the same day but the complainant could not take the possession on 8th November 1985 and the complainant did not come forward to take the possession for a long time. It is the case of the complainant that he had to go for outstation posting from 12th December 1985 to 31st May 1989. A consumer complaint was filed by the respondent/ complainant in the year 2006 before the District Forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellant/ opposite party. The District Forum, Ropar dismissed this complaint vide its order dated 16.10.2006 on the ground of limitation. Complainant then preferred an appeal before the State Commission being First Appeal no. 1613 of 2006 and the same was also dismissed vide order dated 06.08.2014. Complainant then preferred revision petition no. 1015 of 2015 before this Commission. This Commission vide its order dated 01.10.2015 allowed the revision petition to be withdrawn with liberty to withdraw the complaint before the District Forum and to file a fresh complaint before the District Forum. On the basis of this order the complainant filed a fresh complaint before the State Commission bearing number 301 of 2015. Later the complainant filed miscellaneous application before this Commission to amend the order dated 01.10.2015 for permitting the complaint to be filed before any forum. This Commission vide its order dated 11.11.2016 permitted the same. The State Commission while considering complaint number 301 of 2015 first decided the application for condonation of delay filed along with the complaint vide its order dated 22.09.2016 and held that the complaint was not time barred and listed the matter for hearing on maintainability. Later on, the State Commission vide its order dated 10.03.2017 directed the complaint to be transferred to the District Forum for disposal on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction.

(3.) Hence, this appeal has been filed against the order dated 22.09.2016 (allegedly pronounced on 10.3.2017).