NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/1673/2023

SBI CARDS AND PAYMENT SERVICES LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

ANUJ KUMAR - Opp.Party(s)

M/S. GBA LAW OFFICES

20 Jul 2023

ORDER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
 
REVISION PETITION NO. 1673 OF 2023
(Against the Order dated 13/02/2023 in Appeal No. A/1772/2016 of the State Commission Uttar Pradesh)
1. SBI CARDS AND PAYMENT SERVICES LTD.
DLF INFINITY TOWER TOWER C 10 12 FLOOR BLOCK 2 BUILDING 3 DLF CYBER CITY GURGAON HARYANA 122 002
GURUGRAM
HARYANA
...........Petitioner(s)
Versus 
1. ANUJ KUMAR
S/O SH. VEER SINGH R/O C-32, ALPHA-1, GREATER NOIDA, GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR, UTTAR PRADESH
GAUTAM BUDDHA NAGAR
UTTAR PRADESH
...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM SURAT RAM MAURYA,PRESIDING MEMBER

FOR THE PETITIONER :
MR. PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE

Dated : 20 July 2023
ORDER

The office has submitted report that there is delay of 24 days in filing the revision.  The petitioner has filed IA/8789/2023 for condoning the delay.  The impugned order was passed on 13.02.2023.  The petitioner applied for certified copy of the order on 15.06.2023 which was issued on the same day and the revision petition was filed through e-filing on 22.06.2023.  Subject to objection of the other side, delay in filing the revision is condoned. 

          Above revision petition has been filed against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dated 13.02.2023 dismissing appeal no. 1772/2016 as time barred. 

          Order of the District Forum was passed on 28.05.2016 and certified copy of the order was issued on 24.08.2016.  The appeal was filed on 08.09.2016.  The State Commission in the impugned order, found that since the order of District Forum had passed in presence of the parties therefore, they had no justification for not obtaining its copy prior to 24.08.2016.   Regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulation, 2005 mandates for supply of free copy of the order.  Under Section 12(2) of Limitation Act, 1963, the period taken in issuing certified copy of the order has to be excluded, while computing limitation. 

          A perusal of the photostate copy of the certified copy of the order dated 28.05.2016 shows that free copy was issued only on 24.08.2016 and the appeal was filed on 08.09.2016.  It was well within limitation.  The State Commission was not justified in dismissing the appeal as time barred. 

ORDER

In the result, the revision petition is allowed.  Order dated 13.02.2023 dismissing appeal no. 1772 of 2016 is set aside. The appeal is treated as filed within time.  The State Commission is directed to decide the case on merits in accordance with law. 

 
..................................................J
RAM SURAT RAM MAURYA
PRESIDING MEMBER

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.