NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/4654/2009

RAJENDRA VITHAL VANARASE - Complainant(s)

Versus

SATARA ZILHA DAK KARMACHARI - Opp.Party(s)

IN PERSON

12 Mar 2010

ORDER


NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. 4654 OF 2009
(Against the Order dated 17/12/2002 in Appeal No. 1786/1999 of the State Commission Maharastra)
1. RAJENDRA VITHAL VANARASER/o 4, Rajaspura PethSatara ...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. SATARA ZILHA DAK KARMACHARIThrough its Vice Chairman, Mr. Jaysingrao Yadu Kadam, R/o Tandul AliSatara ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.N.P. SINGH ,PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner :NEMO
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 12 Mar 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 petitioner in person.
It is alleged that while petitioner was in employment of Postal Department, he had contributed some amount for shares and economy fund which was deductable from salary every month and total contribution made by him was to the tune of Rs.22,915/-. However, this amount even after his retirement from services and repayment of loan was not released. Eventually, a consumer complaint was filed with the District Forum which directed respondent to make available amount of share as well as the amount contributed by employer to the welfare fund, along with interest @ 18% p.a. Rs.2000/- for compensation and cost of Rs.1000/- was also awarded.
Petitioner submits that appeal preferred by respondent was dismissed in default by the State Commission vide order dated 13.5.2002. However, State Commission by an order dated 17.12.2002 stayed orders passed on 13.05.2002.
 
There is delay of 667 in filing the revision petition by petitioner and reason as stated in the application for condonation of delay is lack of knowledge on part of the petitioner. Petitioner accordingly seeks indulgence of Commission to condone delay which is due to lack of knowledge of law. Considering grounds mentioned in application which are not sufficed, application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Even on merits also State Commission had accepted appeal of respondent on 17.12.2002 setting aside finding of the District Forum, there being no possibility of implementation of the order of the District Forum for attachment order passed in a recovery proceeding. The grounds taken in the revision petition appears to be misconceived and there being no merit revision petition is accordingly dismissed.


......................JB.N.P. SINGHPRESIDING MEMBER