NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/1474/2010

DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

KARAN SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

MR. ARUNABH CHOWDHURY

09 Jul 2010

ORDER


NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. 1474 OF 2010
(Against the Order dated 13/08/2009 in Appeal No. 1077/2009 of the State Commission Haryana)
1. DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM LTD.Sub Divisional Officer (OP), Sub Division Model Town, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Bitran Nigam Ltd. Vidyut NagarHisarHaryana ...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. KARAN SINGHR/o. House 342/3, Ward No. 16, Mahabir Colony, Ram Leela GroundHisarHaryana ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN ,PRESIDENTHON'BLE MRS. VINEETA RAI ,MEMBER
For the Petitioner :Mr.Gaimilung Panmei, Advocate for MR. ARUNABH CHOWDHURY, Advocate
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 09 Jul 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.

MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATON NO. 574/2010 (for restoration)

          For the reasons stated in the application, we recall our order dated 14.5.2010 dismissing the Revision Petition for non-prosecution.  Revision Petition to its original number and is taken up for preliminary hearing.

          This Revision Petition has been filed along with application for condonation of delay to condone the delay of 134 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 134 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.  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