NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/4118/2009

RAJYA BEEJ NIGAM - Complainant(s)

Versus

GOKUL & ORS. - Opp.Party(s)

MR. BALENDU SHEKHAR

12 Nov 2009

ORDER

Date of Filing: 10 Nov 2009

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. No. RP/4118/2009
(Against the Order dated 18/03/2009 in Appeal No. 671/2008 of the State Commission Chhattisgarh)
1. RAJYA BEEJ NIGAM ...........Appellant(s)

Vs.
1. GOKUL & ORS. ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN ,PRESIDENTHON'BLE MR. B.K. TAIMNI ,MEMBER
For the Appellant :MR. BALENDU SHEKHAR
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 12 Nov 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.

          This Revision Petition has been filed with a delay of 142 days, which is over and above the statutory period of 90 days given for filing the Revision Petition.  Under the Consumer Protection Act, the consumer fora are required to decide the cases within 90 days of its filing in which no evidence is to be taken and 150 days in which evidence has to be taken.  The delay of 142 days, which is 1½ times of the statutory period given for filing the Revision Petition, cannot be condoned without sufficient cause being shown.  The only reason given for the delay in filing of the Revision Petition is :

“That the appellant being a government body had a bounden duty to state true and correct facts before this Hon’ble Commission.  The appellant Ld.State Consumer Commission had passed the order on 18.03.09.  Thereafter the order was duly considered by the Department and on examination it was decided that appeal will be filed.  Thereafter the counsel was engaged and the paper  was supplied.  There were a large number of documents which were required to be translated, which took time, as a result of which there was a delay in finalizing the appeal.”

 

We are not satisfied with the cause shown.  Even the second sowing season has begun now.  The right has accrued on the respondent.  Dismissed on the ground of delay.



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