This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the impugned order dated 15.05.2009, passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (hereinafter referred to as "the State Commission") in First Appeal No. 632/2003, Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) v. Anita Devi, vide which, while dismissing the appeal on grounds of limitation as well as on merits, the order dated 09.10.2002, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panchkula, dated 09.10.2002, in Consumer Complaint No. 206/2002, filed on 23.05.2002 by the present respondent, Anita Devi, allowing the said complaint, was upheld.

2. The facts of the case as stated in the consumer complaint are that plot no. 2281 in Sector-15 was originally allotted to Smt. Mohinder Kaur Saluja vide allotment letter dated 06.11.1992. Further vide re-allotment letter dated 23.05.1997, the said plot was allotted to the complainant Anita Devi and Savitri Devi. The possession of the said plot was offered by HUDA to the complainant vide letter dated 30.05.2002. It is stated by HUDA in the memo of revision petition that as per letter dated 11.03.2002, issued by the Executive Engineer, the area was fully developed and the development works had also been completed. The complainant/respondent filed the consumer complaint in question, saying that HUDA had made an inordinate delay in offering possession to them and hence, they should be held liable to pay interest on the amount deposited by them with the HUDA for the period of said delay. The District Forum, allowed the appeal, vide order dated 09.10.2002 and directed payment of interest on the amount deposited before 23.05.1998 @ 18% per annum w.e.f. 23.05.1998 till 30.05.2002 and on the amount deposited after 23.05.1998 w.e.f. the date of deposit till 30.05.2002 and also to give Rs. 2,000/- as litigation cost. Being aggrieved against the said order, the HUDA challenged the same by way of appeal before the State Commission, but the said appeal, having been dismissed vide impugned order, the HUDA is before this Commission by way of the present revision petition.

3. During the pendency of the revision petition, the same was dismissed in default on 08.09.2015, because of the non-appearance of the petitioner or his counsel on that date. An application M.A. No. 172/2016 was filed for restoration of the petition after a delay of 173 days. However, in the interest of justice, the said application was allowed and the petition was restored to its original number. The notice was sent to the respondent at her fresh address, but she did not appear despite service.

4. During arguments, it was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was no justification for the consumer fora below to have asked them to pay interest on the amount deposited, stating that there had been delay in the offer of possession. The case of the HUDA is that possession was offered to the allottee after duly completing the development works in the area.

5. I have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before me.

6. A perusal of the order passed by the State Commission reveals that there was a delay of 141 days on the part of the HUDA in filing appeal against the order of the District Forum before the said Commission. After carrying out a detailed analysis of the facts of the case and discussing the case law on the subject, the learned State Commission observed that the petitioner/appellant had failed to establish sufficient cause to condone the delay. I do not find any justification in the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction to disagree with the said finding of the State Commission. It was the duty of HUDA to complete the necessary administrative formalities and ensure that the appeal would have been filed before the State Commission within the time prescribed. The conclusion arrived at by the State Commission that the said delay could not be condoned is, therefore, upheld.

7. The State Commission have also stated that even on merits, there was no justification to accept the said appeal because the instalments of the plots had been paid to HUDA in time, but the possession of the plot was offered after a long time due to which, they were deprived from raising construction on the said plot. The State Commission observed that there was no justification to accept the plea even on merits. An examination of the entire facts and circumstances on record reveals that there is no illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the orders passed by the consumer fora below, which may merit interference in the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. The Honble Supreme Court in the case Ruby (Chandra) Dutta v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 11 SCC 269 , have stated that the powers in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction should be used only if there is an error of jurisdiction or miscarriage of justice, otherwise the concurrent findings passed by the fora below should not be interfered.

8. Based on the discussion above, there is no merit in this revision petition and the same is ordered to be dismissed and the orders passed by the consumer fora below are upheld. There shall be no order as to costs.