APPEARED AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENTS

PRONOUNCED ON:_28^th  April  2017

ORDER

PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER

          This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the impugned order dated 27.10.2014, passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, (hereinafter referred to as “the State Commission”) in First Appeal No. 494/2013, Lal Chand (since deceased) through his legal representative Jai Pal vs. Delhi Development Authority (DDA), vide which, the application for condonation of delay of 1355 days in filing the appeal before the State Commission was allowed and the said delay was ordered to be condoned.  The petitioner DDA has filed the present Revision Petition, challenging the order of condonation of such delay.

2.      Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant Lal Chand (since deceased), aged around 88 to 90 years, resident of Mangolpuri, Delhi booked a flat on 22.04.1981 in Janta category vide registration no. 24890 with the OP DDA.  He submitted the necessary documents also, but the OP held that he was not eligible for allotment, based on the income criteria.  The DDA cancelled the registration application and also gave information to the complainant.  However, the complainant moved another application for restoration of registration with the DDA.  Since his request was not accepted, he filed the consumer complaint in question, which was decided by the District Forum, vide order dated 30.07.2009 as case no. 491/2007.  The District Forum held that the complainant was not entitled to any relief and hence, the complaint was dismissed.  Being aggrieved against the order of the District Forum, Jai Pal, the legal representative of the complainant Lal Chand filed appeal no. 494/2013 before the State Commission alongwith application for condonation of delay of 1355 days.  The said application having been allowed by the State Commission, the OP DDA is before this Commission by way of the present Revision Petition. 

3.      It was stated in the application for condonation of delay before the State Commission by the legal representative of the complainant that the impugned order of the District Forum was passed on 30.07.2009.  The original complainant Lal Chand died on 22.08.2009, but his legal heirs were not aware of any proceedings before the District Forum.  The legal heirs found certain documents relating to the complaint in question in February, 2013 only.  The legal representative Jai Pal engaged a counsel, who after inquiry came to know that the matter had been decided by the District Forum on 30.07.2009.  A copy of the order of the District Forum was procured on 21.02.2013.  The appeal was filed before the State Commission on 22.04.2013 alongwith application for condonation of delay.  The State Commission held vide impugned order that there was no denial of the fact that the original complainant died immediately after pronouncement of the order of the District Forum.  The legal representatives of the deceased could not be expected to have knowledge of the proceedings of the case.  As soon as they got hold of the documents in question, they filed the appeal.  The State Commission condoned the delay of 1355 days in filing the appeal.

4.      During hearing before us, it was argued by the learned counsel for the OP DDA that there was no valid ground stated in the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.  Even after the respondents/appellants had received copy of the order of the District Forum on 21.02.2013, they took another two months in filing the appeal.  The condonation of delay should not be made as a matter of right.  The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention to the orders passed by this Commission on 30.01.2015 in First Appeal No. 10/2015, K. M. Anbarasan vs. M/s Tata AIG Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. in support of his arguments.  She has drawn attention to another order dated 15.04.2013, passed by this Commission in Revision Petition No. 3400/2012, Sanjay Panchal vs. Indubhai Parekh Memorial Hospital & Anr., pleading that there was no sufficient cause to condone the delay in the present case. 

5.      Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent argued that Lal Chand died just after three weeks of the order of the District Forum.  During proceedings before the District Forum, Lal Chand was present in person and he was not represented by any counsel.  His legal heirs did not have any knowledge, therefore, about the happenings in the case before the DDA or the District Forum.  However, when they learnt that the property in question had been cancelled, they engaged an Advocate, who made inquiries in the matter and learnt about the order of the District Forum.  The appeal was then got drafted and filed before the State Commission.  The order passed by the State Commission was, therefore, in accordance with law and should be upheld.

6.      We have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us.

7.      The fact that the complainant Lal Chand died on 22.08.2009, i.e. just within three weeks of the order of the District Forum, passed on 30.07.2009 has not been denied by the petitioner/OP on record.  A perusal of the order of the District Forum also indicates that the complainant was present before the District Forum in person and was not represented through any counsel.  Under these circumstances, the version given by the legal heirs of the complainant that they were totally unaware of the proceedings before the District Forum, has to be believed to be true.  There is nothing on record to say that the legal heirs of the deceased had any knowledge about the proceedings in the case.  A perusal of the order passed by the State Commission indicates that they have taken into account the case law on the subject and came to the conclusion that the appellant before them had been able to offer a reasonable explanation for the delay in filing the appeal.  It is a settled legal proposition that if cogent and convincing reasons are advanced for the delay in filing the proceedings, the said delay can be condoned by the concerned Court/Tribunal.  In the present case, we do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order passed by the State Commission.  In any case, a decision on merits is yet to be taken by the State Commission, which would also include a decision on the issue whether the complainant falls within the definition of consumer or not.  In these circumstances, this Revision Petition is ordered to be dismissed and the order passed by the State Commission upheld.  The said Commission is directed to proceed further in the matter in accordance with law and try to dispose of the appeal within a period of four months preferably.