NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/3114/2005

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BIHAR STATE HOUSING BOARD & ANR - Complainant(s)

Versus

MANINDRA KUMAR MISHRA - Opp.Party(s)

HIMANSU SHEKHAR

08 Sep 2009

ORDER

Date of Filing: 12 Dec 2005

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. No. RP/3114/2005
(Against the Order dated 29/09/2005 in Appeal No. 587/2005 of the State Commission Bihar)
1. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BIHAR STATE HOUSING BOARD & ANRDAMODARPUR MUZAFFARPUR - ...........Appellant(s)

Vs.
1. MANINDRA KUMAR MISHRA RESIDENT OF VILL GOVINDPUR P.S. BHAGWANPUR HAT DISTT. SIWAN ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN ,PRESIDENTHON'BLE MR. B.K. TAIMNI ,MEMBER
For the Appellant :HIMANSU SHEKHAR
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 08 Sep 2009
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.

          The State Commission has dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation.  There was a delay of more than 90 days in filing the appeal which was over and above the period of 30 days statutorily given for filing the appeal.  Consumer foras are required to decide the cases in a summary manner within given time frame.  Complaint has to be disposed of within 90 days from the date of filing where no

-2-

evidence is required to be taken and within 150 days where evidence is required to be taken.  Delay of three times over the statutory period given for filing the appeal, cannot be condoned without showing sufficient cause.

          We have gone through the order of the State Commission and the application filed before the State Commission for condonation of delay.  As per application filed, the delay was because of movement of the file from table to table and also, before the petitioner could send the papers for sanction the period of limitation had already expired.

          We agree with the view taken by the State Commission that the petitioner had failed to show sufficient cause for condonation of delay.  Dismissed. 

 



......................JASHOK BHANPRESIDENT
......................B.K. TAIMNIMEMBER