NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/1734/2009

U.P. AVAS VIKAS PARISHAD - Complainant(s)

Versus

SANTOSH KUMAR RAGHAV - Opp.Party(s)

M/S. S. VYAS ASSOCIATES

10 Jul 2009

ORDER

Date of Filing: 15 May 2009

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. No. RP/1734/2009
(Against the Order dated 30/05/2008 in Appeal No. 3095/1998 of the State Commission Uttar Pradesh)
1. U.P. AVAS VIKAS PARISHAD104, Mahatma Gandhi Marg. Lucknow U.P ...........Appellant(s)

Vs.
1. SANTOSH KUMAR RAGHAVS/o. Late Sh. Rampal singh Raghav R/o. 43. MIG Avas Vikas Colony DM. Road. Distt Bulandshehar and Village. Bulandshehar Shievas Post office Kuneapur Buland Shehar U.P ...........Respondent(s)

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

Dated : 10 Jul 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.

 

          This Revision Petition has been filed with a delay of 155 days according to the petitioner and 115 days as reported by the Registry, which is over and above the statutory period of 90 days given to file the Revision Petition. Fora under the Consumer Protection Act have to decide the cases expeditiously in a summary manner. In the context of the Consumer Protection Act, the delay of 115 days is enormous. The only explanation given by the petitioner for condonation of delay is that the delay was caused due to the fact that the file was lying with an employee, which by itself is no reason to condone the delay. Order of the State Commission in Appeal is dated 30.5.2008 and the file was received in the office of the advocate during the month of November 2008 asking him to file the Revision Petition. But the Revision Petition was filed on 15.5.2009 meaning thereby that the delay was caused in the office of the advocate.
          In view of the above, application for condonation of delay is rejected and the Revision Petition is dismissed as barred by time.


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