Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/295/2016

Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Through Chairman - Complainant(s)

Versus

Madan Mohan Bhardwaj s/o Hardyal Bhardwaj - Opp.Party(s)

V.B.Mathur

27 Apr 2016

ORDER

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

 

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 295 /2016

 

Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Head office Parivahan Marg, Chomu House,Jaipur through its Chairman cum Managing Director & ors.

Vs.

Madan Mohan Bhardwaj r/o Plot no. 14 Gupta Colony,Behind Tiwari School, Jawahar Nagar, Mungsaka, Alwar.

 

Date of Order 27.4.2016

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

Mrs. Meena Mehta -Member

 

Mr.V.B.Mathur counsel for the appellants

 

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

 

2

 

This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the District Forum, Alwar dated 10.11.2015. The matter has come upon application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act.

 

It has been stated that order was passed on 10.11.2015, certified copies were applied on 19.11.2015 and it was supplied on 11.2.2016 and thereafter in the Head Office opinion was sought and matter remained pending for sanction. Hence, delay is justified.

 

Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and perused the impugned judgment as well as application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act.

 

The application has been filed with wrong facts that certified copy was supplied to the appellant on 11.2.2016 whereas the endorsement on certified copy goes to show that it was supplied to the appellant on 1.12.2015. Hence, no explanation has been furnished as regard to delay from 1.12.2015 to 11.2.2016 and inspite of non furnishing of explanation the application deserves to be dismissed and hence dismissed.

 

3

 

The matter has also been considered on merits. It is an admitted case on the part of the appellants that Rs. 1,83,571/- are due but same has not been refunded to the respondent. Hence, the Forum below has rightly held that it was deficiency of service on the part of the appellants and ordered for refund of the amount with interest and compensation and cost of proceedings have rightly been imposed. Hence, there is no merit in this appeal and liable to be rejected.

 

 

(Meena Mehta) (Nisha Gupta )

Member President

 

 

nm