NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/4317/2007

MAHA SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

DEPTT. OF IRRIGATION HARAYA - Opp.Party(s)

IN PERSON

27 Jul 2009

ORDER

Date of Filing: 05 Sep 2007

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. No. RP/4317/2007
(Against the Order dated 13/04/2006 in Appeal No. 1354/2006 of the State Commission Tripura)
1. MAHA SINGH -nullnull ...........Appellant(s)

Vs.
1. DEPTT. OF IRRIGATION HARAYA-nullnull ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN ,PRESIDENTHON'BLE MR. B.K. TAIMNI ,MEMBER
For the Appellant :Mr. D. P. Pathak, adv. for IN PERSON, Advocate
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 27 Jul 2009
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.

          Complainant/petitioner is an agriculturist.

          His land is situated adjacent to Gohana Minor/Canal.  As per allegations made in the complaint, in the rainy season in the year 1994, due to floods his land was inundated and heavy loss was caused to him.  Alleging deficiency on part of the respondents by not properly maintaining the canal causing him loss due to floods during the year 1995-1998, he filed a complaint before the District Forum.

 

-2-

          District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the respondents to pay Rs.30,000/- towards compensation and Rs.1100/- as costs.

          Respondents, being aggrieved, filed an appeal before the State Commission.  The State Commission by the impugned order has set aside the order of the District Forum and dismissed the complaint, primarily on the ground that the complaint was filed much beyond the period of limitation prescribed under the Statute for cause of action had arisen in the year 1995-1998 and the complaint was filed in the year 2004 whereas under Section 24 (a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 the complaint could be filed within two years from the date of arising of cause of action.

            We agree with the view taken by the State Commission and find no merits in this revision petition.  Dismissed.



......................JASHOK BHANPRESIDENT
......................B.K. TAIMNIMEMBER