NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/1132/2010

KOTTAYAM RAILWAY STATION - Complainant(s)

Versus

KURIACHEN MATHEW & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

MR. RAJESHWAR SINGH

20 Jul 2010

ORDER


NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. 1132 OF 2010
(Against the Order dated 21/10/2009 in Appeal No. 330/2009 of the State Commission Kerala)
1. KOTTAYAM RAILWAY STATIONStation Master Kottayam Railway StationKottayamKerala ...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. KURIACHEN MATHEW & ANR.Kodikulam House, Paduva P.O. AyarkkunnamKottayamKerala2. M/S. BODY'S ASSOCIATES TOURS TRAVELDocument Writers Office, Kudukkaseril Building, West of CoffectorateKottayamKerala ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. BATTA ,PRESIDING MEMBERHON'BLE MR. VINAY KUMAR ,MEMBER
For the Petitioner :MR. RAJESHWAR SINGH
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 20 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.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. There is delay of 41 days in filing the revision petition which, in our opinion, has not been satisfactorily explained in the condonation application which has been filed. In the said application, only general grounds like administrative exigency and time taken for approval from the office, lack of proper communication, etc., have been taken, which cannot be treated as sufficient grounds. Besides this, no details in connection with the said grounds have been given. In view of this, we are not inclined to condone the delay. Besides this, even on merit, we find that the amount awarded is not much so as to interfere with the same. However, we would like to make it clear that this order may not be treated as a precedent for future. In view of this, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the State Commission under section 21(b) of CP Act, 1986 and revision petition is disposed of accordingly, with no order as to cost.


......................JR.K. BATTAPRESIDING MEMBER
......................VINAY KUMARMEMBER