RAVI KUMAR & ORS. V/S BOARD OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, HARYANA - Consumer Court Case

NCDRC

RP/4495-4498/2009

BOARD OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, HARYANA - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAVI KUMAR & ORS. - Opp.Party(s)

MS. MANJIT SINGH

11 Jan 2010

ORDER


NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. 4495-4498 OF 2009
(Against the Order dated 15/05/2009 in Appeal No. 1870-1873/2006 of the State Commission Haryana)

1. BOARD OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, HARYANAHaryana Bhiwani Tehsil & Distt. Bhiwani						...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. RAVI KUMAR & ORS.Resident of Village. and P.P. Talakaur Tehsil Jagadhari Distt. yamumnagar Through hear Natural Guardian Sh. Bheekh Mohammad						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. BATTA ,PRESIDING MEMBER

For the Petitioner :

MS. MANJIT SINGH

For the Respondent :

NEMO

Dated : 11 Jan 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 counsel for the Petitioner. There is delay of 116 days in filing these revisions for which there is no satisfactory explanation. No details are given as to when certified copies were misplaced, when true copies were collected from Advocate, when opinion was sought and received, why requisite documents were not in the file and when the same were obtained. Hence, revisions are liable to dismissed on delay in filing revisions. Besides, there are concurrent findings of two fora below. The orders passed by the fora below are just fair, reasonable and equitable and do not call for any interference whatsoever in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as I do not find any material irregularity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the orders of two fora below. The revisions are, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.

......................JR.K. BATTAPRESIDING MEMBER