STATE BANK OF PATIALA Vs. HARI RAM GARG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was the opposite party before the District Forum, where the respondent had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner.

(2.) The matter related to development of area near the plot allotted by the petitioner Municipal Corporation in favour of the respondent/complainant. When the development was not taking place, a complaint was filed before the District Forum by the respondent, who directed the petitioner to complete the development around the plot and also pay interest @ 12% p.a. on the deposits made by the complainant from the date of deposit till the delivery of physical possession of the plot and Rs. 2,000 for mental agony and Rs. 200 as costs. Aggrieved by this order, an appeal was filed before the State Commission by the petitioner. Since the petitioner as appellant before the State Commission did not comply with the 'proviso of the Section 15' despite repeated opportunities being given to the petitioner, this appeal was dismissed by the State Commission on the ground that the appeal cannot be 'entertained' for non-compliance of proviso of Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, which related to deposit of 50% of the decreed amount or Rs. 25,000, whichever is less. It is against this order that this revision petition has been filed before us.

(3.) There is a delay of 124 days in filing the revision petition before us. An application for condonation of delay has been filed. Admittedly the copy of the order dated 2.5.2006 was received by the petitioner on 5.5.2006. Subsequent conduct has been narrated in para 3 of the application for condonation of delay, which reads as follows :