NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/1330/2010

HDFC BANK LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. RAMINDER SINGH AMRIK SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

MR. PUNIT K. BHALLA

16 Apr 2010

ORDER

Date of Filing: 05 Apr 2010

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. No. RP/1330/2010
(Against the Order dated 24/06/2009 in Appeal No. 1665/2007 of the State Commission Haryana)
1. HDFC BANK LTD.Having its Registered Office at: Sandoz House, Doctor A.B. Road, WorliMumbai - 400018Maharashtra ...........Appellant(s)

Vs.
1. M/S. RAMINDER SINGH AMRIK SINGHThrough its Partner Shri Amrik Singh, Shop No. 12, Gram Market LadwaKurkshetraHaryana ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN ,PRESIDENTHON'BLE MR. S.K. NAIK ,MEMBER
For the Appellant :NEMO
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 16 Apr 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.

 This revision petition has been filed with a delay of 265 days which is over and above the statutory period of 90 days given for filing the revision petition.  Under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 the complaint or appeal has to be decided in a summary manner in a time bound period.  It has to be decided within 90 days where no evidence is required to be taken and within 150 days where evidence is required to be taken.  Inordinate delay of 265 days cannot be


-2-

condoned without showing sufficient cause.  The only reason given for condoning the delay is that the counsel for the petitioner received the papers at a belated stage from the local lawyer.  This by itself is no ground to condone the delay.  Delay of each day has to be explained which the petitioner has failed to show.  We are not satisfied with the cause shown.  Application seeking condonation of delay is dismissed.  Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed as barred by time.



......................JASHOK BHANPRESIDENT
......................S.K. NAIKMEMBER