NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/4480/2012

INDIA INFOLINE LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

DR. AJAY SEHDEV - Opp.Party(s)

MR. MUKESH M. GOEL

01 May 2014

ORDER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
 
REVISION PETITION NO. 4480 OF 2012
 
(Against the Order dated 05/10/2012 in Appeal No. 697/2009 of the State Commission Delhi)
1. INDIA INFOLINE LTD.
Through its Authorised Representaitve Sh. Jaspreet Singh Arneja, 71/3 Rama Road,Industrial Area, Moti Nagar,
NEW DELHI - 110015
...........Petitioner(s)
Versus 
1. DR. AJAY SEHDEV
R/o E-37A, House No-15, Rajouri Garden
NEW DELHI
...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE, PRESIDING MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. SURESH CHANDRA, MEMBER

For the Petitioner :
Mr. Mukesh M. Goel, Advocate
For the Respondent :
In person

Dated : 01 May 2014
ORDER

The petitioner being aggrieved of the order of the State Commission Delhi dated 05.10.2012 has preferred this revision petition. The order of the State Commission is reproduced as under:- ursuant to order dated 9.7.12, amount of Rs.3,000/- as costs imposed on the appellant, which he was directed to pay to the respondent within 45 days has not been paid, as the counsel for the respondent has informed us. The result therefore is that, the order passed on delay condonation application by which the delay was condoned, automatically stood vacated, as was provided in the order passed on 9.7.12. The appeal is therefore time barred stands dismissed. 2. On reading of the aforesaid order, it is evident that the State Commission has dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner on technical ground of limitation because of failure of the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- as conditional costs for condoning of delay in filing of the appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the order of the State Commission is very harsh and the petitioner has been penalized for his failure to meet the deadline for payment of the conditional cost ignoring that the petitioner was ready and willing to comply the order of the State Commission. To show his bonafide, learned counsel for the petitioner is ready to pay the conditional cost imposed by the State Commission today to the respondent. It is further submitted that the petitioner has good case on merits and if the doors of justice are shut to him for technical reason it will result in grave injustice. 4. The respondent, in all fairness, has conceded that he has no objection if the revision petition is allowed and the matter is remanded back to the State Commission subject to the cost for harassment and delay caused. It is further submitted that this matter is going on since 2008 therefore if the case is remanded the disposal may be made time bound. 5. In view of the above, particularly, the concession given at the Bar, we allow the revision petition subject to cost of Rs.10,000/- to be paid to the respondent. Impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the State Commission with a request to dispose of the appeal within six months. 6. Cost of Rs.3,000/- imposed by the State Commission for condoning the delay is paid by the petitioner and accepted by the respondent. 7. Parties to appear before the State Commission on 23.05.2014. It is clarified that if the conditional cost of Rs.10,000/- is not paid on or before the 23.05.2014 this order shall be deemed to have recalled. 8. Order dasti.

 
......................J
AJIT BHARIHOKE
PRESIDING MEMBER
......................
SURESH CHANDRA
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.