NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/1501/2012

STATE GOVERNMENT & 4 ORS. - Complainant(s)

Versus

GORDHAN SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

MR. MILIND KUMAR

23 Apr 2012

ORDER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
 
REVISION PETITION NO. 1501 OF 2012
 
(Against the Order dated 09/09/2011 in Appeal No. 764/2010 of the State Commission Rajasthan)
1. STATE GOVERNMENT & 4 ORS.
Through the officer Incharge the District Education Officer Secondary (Second)
Sikar
Rajasthan
2. Secondary Education Department,
through its Director,Directorate of Secondary Education
Bikaner
Rajasthan
3. The District Education officer,
Secondary Education Sikar, Through the District Education Officer, Secondary School,
Bikaner
Rajasthan
4. Dedraj Khaitan, Govt Senior Higher Secondary School
through the District Education Officer, Secondary
Sikar
Rajasthan
5. The Warden Hostel, Dedraj Khaitan,
Goverment Senior Higher Secondary School,Losal
Sikar
Rajasthan
...........Petitioner(s)
Versus 
1. GORDHAN SINGH
S/o Late Shri Bhanwar Singh, R/o Village Dausar Tehsil Deedwana
Naguar
Rajasthan
...........Respondent(s)

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

For the Petitioner :MR. MILIND KUMAR
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 23 Apr 2012
ORDER

          This revision petition has been filed with a delay of 116 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.  Complaint has to be disposed of within 90 days from the date of filing where no expert evidence is required to be taken and within 150 days where expert evidence is required to be taken.  The inordinate delay of 116 days cannot be condoned without showing sufficient cause.  Supreme Court, in a recent


 

-2-

judgment, Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority – IV(2011)CPJ 63 (SC) has observed 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 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 explanation given for condonation of delay is that the delay occurred due to administrative reasons.  We are not satisfied with the cause shown.  Condonation of inordinate delay of 116 days would defeat the very purpose of providing the special period of limitation.  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.