NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/2575/2010

HOSHIAR SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

MAHENDRA FINANCE CO. & ORS. - Opp.Party(s)

IN PERSON

03 Sep 2010

ORDER


NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. 2575 OF 2010
(Against the Order dated 06/04/2010 in Appeal No. 21/2010 of the State Commission Delhi)
1. HOSHIAR SINGHR/o. 9401, Tokri Walan Azad MarketDelhi - 6Delhi ...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. MAHENDRA FINANCE CO. & ORS.226,228, 2nd Floor, Ansal Chamber-II, Plot No. 6, Bhikaji Cama PlaceNew Delhi - 110066Delhi2. M/S. SKYLINE AUTOMOBILES (AUTHORISED DEALER: MAHENDRA & MAHINDRA LTD.)Officea at: 1E/11, Jhandewalan Extn.New Delhi - 110055Delhi ...........Respondent(s)

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

Dated : 03 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.

Heard the petitioner for quite some time. The complaint was dismissed by the District Forum on 26.11.2008. It may be mentioned here that the complainant had not appeared before the District Forum on 20.09.2008, 10.10.2008, 27.10.2008 as also on 26.11.2008 on account of which, the complaint was dismissed in default. The complainant filed an application for restoration of the said complaint after a year and the ground taken was that his father had expired and that he was also taking treatment and his wife was also suffering from T.B. The District Forum found that father of the deceased had in fact died on 23.05.2009, i.e, after about six months of the dismissal of the complaint and this could not be treated as ground for restoration. The District Forum also found that the petitioner was an outpatient in the Hindu Rao Hospital and was not confined to bed, which could have restricted him to file the application in time. Since the application for restoration was filed after more than one year, the application for restoration was dismissed. It may be mentioned here that some proceedings in the Civil Court are also pending in respect of the same transaction. The appeal filed by the present petitioner was dismissed by the State Commission. The State Commission took note of the entire material on record and refused to set aside the order of the District Forum. We do not find any reason or justification to interfere in the concurrent findings of two Fora below in exercise of revisonal jurisdiction as we do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional errors in the orders of the Fora below. The revision is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.


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