NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/1517/2012

JM FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD. (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS JM MORGAN STANLEY RETAIL SERVICES LTD.) - Complainant(s)

Versus

ARVIND L. PATEL & 3 ORS. - Opp.Party(s)

M/S. UDWADIA UDESHI & ARGUS PARTNERS

29 May 2012

ORDER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
 
REVISION PETITION NO. 1517 OF 2012
 
(Against the Order dated 02/07/2010 in Appeal No. 1488/2007 of the State Commission Gujarat)
1. JM FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD. (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS JM MORGAN STANLEY RETAIL SERVICES LTD.)
301 Chinubhai Centre, Nehru Bridge Corner, Ashram Road
Ahmedabad - 380009
Gujarat
...........Petitioner(s)
Versus 
1. ARVIND L. PATEL & 3 ORS.
All Hindu Religion R/o B-4 Sidhagri APpts Pritamnagar, Ellisbridge
Ahmedabad
Gujarat
2. Smt Manorama I Patel
R/o B-4 Sidhagri APpts Pritamnagar,Ellisbridge
Ahmedabad
Gujarat
3. Harivadan Natvarbhai patel
R/o B-4 Sidhagri APpts Pritamnagar,Ellisbridge
Ahmedabad
Gujarat
4. Rofit Industries Ltd a Company,Registered under the Companies Act:
501,Sangli Bank, Building,296,Nariman Street,Fort
Mumbai
Maharastra
...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN, PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. VINEETA RAI, MEMBER

For the Petitioner :M/S. UDWADIA UDESHI & ARGUS PARTNERS
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 29 May 2012
ORDER

This revision petition has been filed with a delay of 554 days which is over and above the statutory period of 90 days given for filing the revision petition.   Under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 a special period of limitation has been provided to ensure expeditious disposal of cases.  Complaint has to be disposed of within 90 days from the date of filing where no expert evidence is required to be

 

-2-

taken and within 150 days where expert evidence is required to be taken.  The inordinate delay of 554 days cannot be condoned without showing sufficient cause.  The only reason given for condonation of delay is that the delay occurred in obtaining the permission/instructions to file the revision petition.  We are not satisfied with the cause shown.  Day to day delay has not been explained.  Supreme Court, in a recent judgment, Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority – IV(2011)CPJ 63 (SC) has held that while deciding the application filed for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if the appeals and revisions which are highly belated are entertained.  Relevant observations are as under:

“It is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for

condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer

-3-

Protection Act, 1986 for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if this court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the consumer foras.

 

The inordinate delay of 554 days cannot be condoned. Application for condonation of delay is dismissed as a consequence thereof revision petition is dismissed.

 

 
......................J
ASHOK BHAN
PRESIDENT
......................
VINEETA RAI
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.