Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/1027/2015

M/s. Lals Depertmental Store through Pro Vimal Chetani - Complainant(s)

Versus

Kamlesh Kumar S/o. Mahaveer Prasad - Opp.Party(s)

Kamal Chand Chamaria

17 Dec 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 1027 / 2015

 

Mr.Lal's Departmental Store S-7 Yatharth Kabir Marg, Bani Park,Jaipur. Through proprietor Vimal Chelani

 

Vs.

 

Kamlesh Kumar Pareek s/o Mahaveer Prasad Pareek, r/o House No. 131-132 Sriram Nagar, Kalwar Road, Jhotwara,Jaipur & ors.

 

Date of Order 17.12.2015

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

Mr. Kailash Soyal -Member

 

Mr.Kamal Chamaria counsel for the appellant

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

 

The matter has come upon application u/s 5 of the

2

 

Limitation Act with the contention that the appellant could not know about the judgment dated 19.9.2011. He first time got notice of the court in July 2015 and thereafter he has filed this appeal with delay of three years and 297 days.

 

The contention raised in the application totally false and frivolous . The appellant was duly represented through counsel before the court below and in presence of counsel the judgment has been passed on 19^th September 2011. Hence, it does not lie in the mouth of the complainant to say that he was not having knowledge of the decision.

 

During arguments it has been stated that Mr.Pawan Taylor was not the advocate on behalf of the appellant but this contention is not taken in the application and nothing has been stated in the application in this regard and when the appellant was duly represented through counsel and in whose presence the judgment has been passed, he was having knowledge of the judgment on the date of passing of the judgment and whole contentions are false and cannot be accepted.

 

For the sake of arguments if we accept the contention of the appellant that Mr.Pawan Taylor was not the advocate of the

3

 

appellant then the appellant was not represented before the court below and it was his duty to have the knowledge of the judgment and on this count also his application seems to be frivolous one.

 

Looking to the above circumstances, this application deserves to be dismissed and hence dismissed so also the appeal.

 

(Kailash Soyal) (Nisha Gupta )

Member President

 

nm