Case Note & Summary
The case involved an appeal by the Haryana Urban Development Authority against an order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which had dismissed a Revision application due to a delay of 29 days in filing. The Supreme Court, upon hearing the parties, found that there was sufficient cause for the delay and decided to set aside the National Commission's order. The court remitted the matter back to the National Commission for disposal on its merits, instructing that the principles established in the case of Ghaziabad Development Authority vs. Balbir Singh should be followed. The appeal was allowed without any order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Consumer Law - Condonation of Delay - Sufficient Cause for Delay - Not applicable, Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - The court found that sufficient cause had been disclosed for condoning a small delay of 29 days in filing the Revision application. The court set aside the National Commission's order and remitted the matter back for disposal on merits, emphasizing the need to consider the principles laid down in a precedent case. Held that the delay shall stand condoned (Paras Not mentioned).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the delay of 29 days in filing the Revision application should be condoned.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the National Commission's order, and condoned the delay of 29 days in filing the Revision application. The matter was remitted back to the National Commission for disposal on merits.
Law Points
- Condonation of delay
- Consumer disputes
- Revision application
