NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/4316/2009

DASTGIR RAMJANSO BANDAR & ORS. - Complainant(s)

Versus

AGRICULTURE INSURANCE CO. OF INDIA LTD. & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

MR. ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE

07 Apr 2010

ORDER

Date of Filing: 20 Nov 2009

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. No. RP/4316/2009
(Against the Order dated 12/01/2009 in Appeal No. 104/2008 of the State Commission Maharastra)
1. DASTGIR RAMJANSO BANDAR & ORS.All R/at. Shirdhon Tal. Shrol Kolhapur ...........Appellant(s)

Vs.
1. AGRICULTURE INSURANCE CO. OF INDIA LTD. & ANR.office. at. 20th Floor. Stock Exchange Towers Dalal Street Fort Mumbai-232. GOVT. OF MAHARASTRA Agiculture Animal husbandry. poultry Develpment and Fisheries Depatment mantralayaMumbai-32 ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. GUPTA ,PRESIDING MEMBERHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. BATTA ,MEMBER
For the Appellant :NEMO
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 07 Apr 2010
ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

In this revision filed against the order dated 12.1.2009 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Maharashtra State, Mumbai, there is delay of 217 days in filing the revision petition for condoning whereof, the petitioners have filed application. Para no.2 of the application wherein ground for condoning the delay has been set out is reproduced below:- - 2- “The petitioners submit that the impugned order was pronounced on 1.2.2009 and the certified copy thereof was sent by the Registry of the Commission to the petitioners on 22.1.2009 and same was received by the petitioners. The petitioners are 82 in numbers and for filing the Review Petition before this Hon’ble Court to come collectively has taken this delay. The petitioners after receiving the impugned judgement and order have taken legal opinion to file this Review Petition. The petitioners also have to generate money to file this revision petition. The petitioners thereafter came to Delhi alongwith all the documents and handover the document to file revision petition in the month of September, 2009. During the drafting of the revision petition it transpired that some relevant documents that includes the order of the District Forum has to be translated as because it is in vernacular language of Marathi and that has taken time to translate the said documents. Thereafter, the matter was immediately drafted and filed before this Hon’ble Court without any delay.” - 3 - Revision has been filed on 20.11.2009. Copy of the order under challenge admittedly was received by the petitioners on 22.1.2009. To be only noted that in the said para –2 it has not been disclosed as to when the legal opinion after receipt of the copy of the order was taken for filing revision, when was collective decision to file revision was thereafter taken, when was the money collected from the members? Allegations as they stand are vague and on the basis thereof the delay of 217 days can not be condoned. Application is, therefore, dismissed as not disclosing sufficient cause to condone the delay in question. Revision petition too is dismissed as barred by limitation.


......................JK.S. GUPTAPRESIDING MEMBER
......................JR.K. BATTAMEMBER