NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/2167/2010

AJMER VIDYUT VITERAN NIGAM LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

JHABAR MAL GURJAR - Opp.Party(s)

MR. SHYAM MOORJANI

16 Sep 2010

ORDER


NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. 2167 OF 2010
(Against the Order dated 29/04/2008 in Appeal No. 364/2008 of the State Commission Rajasthan)
1. AJMER VIDYUT VITERAN NIGAM LTD.Through Executive Engineer, AVVNL, KhetriJhunjhunuRajasthan2. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, AVVNL, JHUNJHUNUThrough Executive Engineer, AVVNL, KhetriJhunjhunuRajasthan3. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, AVVNL, JHUNJHUNUThrough Executive Engineer, AVVNL, KhetriJhunjhunuRajasthan ...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. JHABAR MAL GURJARR/o. Dani Modkiten Papurna, Tehsil-KhetriJhunjunuRajasthan ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN ,PRESIDENTHON'BLE MRS. VINEETA RAI ,MEMBER
For the Petitioner :MR. SHYAM MOORJANI
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 16 Sep 2010
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 along with application for condonation of delay to condone the delay of 112 days in filing the Revision Petition, which is over and above the period of 90 days statutorily given to file the Revision Petition. Under the Consumer Protection Act, the consumer fora are required to decide the cases in summary manner within a time frame, i.e., within 90 days from the date of filing, in case, no expert evidence is required to be taken, and, within 150 days, wherever expert evidence is required to be taken. Delay of 112 days cannot be condoned without sufficient cause being shown. The only reason given for condonation of delay is that the file was moving from table to table to get the sanction to file the Revision Petition. The case had come up for hearing on 3.8.2010. Prima facie, we were not satisfied with the cause shown and on a request made by the counsel for the petitioner, the case was adjourned for today to file a better application for condoning the delay stating stage-wise time taken and the specific reasons thereof for the delay. Application has not been filed. We are not satisfied with the cause shown. Application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the Revision Petition is dismissed as barred by limitation.



......................JASHOK BHANPRESIDENT
......................VINEETA RAIMEMBER