NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/368/2012

RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD & ORS. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SANDEEP KUMAR SHARMA - Opp.Party(s)

MR. MILIND KUMAR

02 Apr 2012

ORDER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
 
REVISION PETITION NO. 368 OF 2012
 
(Against the Order dated 16/05/2011 in Appeal No. 1960/2007 of the State Commission Rajasthan)
1. RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD & ORS.
Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur, Through its Chairman, Rajasthan Hosuing Board,Jyoti Nagar
Jaipur
Rajasthan
2. The Deputy Housing Commissioner
Circle Sound, Rajasthan Housing Board,Mansarover
Jaipur
Rajasthan
3. The Estate officer,
Ciricle Second, Rajasthan Housing Board Mansarover
Jaipur
Rajasthan
...........Petitioner(s)
Versus 
1. SANDEEP KUMAR SHARMA
S/o Umashanker Sharma, R/o 32 Geeta Colony, Agra Schhnera Road, Bharatpur, through its general Power Attority
...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN, PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. VINEETA RAI, MEMBER

For the Petitioner :
Mr.Vinay Kr. Sharma and Mr.Milind
Kumar, Advocates
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 02 Apr 2012
ORDER

This Revision Petition has been filed along with application for condonation of delay to condone the delay of 162 days in filing the Revision Petition, which is over and above the period of 90 days statutorily given to file the Revision Petition.  Under the Consumer Protection Act, the consumer fora are required to decide the cases in summary manner within a time frame, i.e., within 90 days from the date of filing, in case, no expert evidence is required to be taken, and, within 150 days, wherever expert evidence is required to be taken.  Inordinate delay of 162 days cannot be condoned without sufficient cause being shown.  The only reason given for condonation of delay is that the instructions for filing the revision petition were given on 9.6.2011.  Office of the counsel was contacted in the second week of December 2011 and the revision petition was filed after getting the documents translated in English on 27.1.2012.  We are not satisfied with the cause shown.  Delay between 9.6.2011 when the instructions were issued for filing the revision petition and December 2011 when the counsel for the petitioner was contacted to file the revision petition has not been explained.  Day to day delay has to be explained.  Application for condonation of delay is dismissed.   Consequently, the Revision Petition is dismissed as barred by limitation.

 
......................J
ASHOK BHAN
PRESIDENT
......................
VINEETA RAI
MEMBER

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.