NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/1073/2010

SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY & ORS. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SHIVANAND KATTI - Opp.Party(s)

MR. RAJESHWAR SINGH

30 Apr 2010

ORDER

Date of Filing: 12 Mar 2010

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. No. RP/1073/2010
(Against the Order dated 16/07/2009 in Appeal No. 149/2009 of the State Commission Karnataka)
1. SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY & ORS.The General Manager, South Central Railway, Rail NilayamSecunderabadAndhra Pradesh2. THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGERSouth Central RailwayGuntkalKarnataka3. THE STATION MASTERRaichur Railway StationRaichurKarnataka ...........Appellant(s)

Vs.
1. SHIVANAND KATTIR/o. H.No. 9-587/24/109, Near Akkamahadevi Temple, Shah BazarGulbargaKarnataka ...........Respondent(s)

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

Dated : 30 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 145 days which is over and above the statutory period of 90 days given for filing the revision petition.  Under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 consumer fora are required to decide the case in a summary manner within 90 days of its filing where no expert evidence is required to be  


-2-

taken and within 150 days where the evidence is required to be taken under Section 13 (4) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The consumer fora are required to decide the case in a summary manner.  The inordinate delay of 145 days cannot be condoned without showing sufficient cause.  The only cause shown is that the file was moving from table to table.  It has been stated that counsel for the petitioner received the papers on 22.7.2009.  Thereafter, more than two months were taken for seeking approval from the higher authorities for filing the Revision Petition.  It has been held in a number of judgments of this Commission as well as Supreme Court that each day’s delay has to be explained.  No effort has been made to explain the day-to-day delay.  We are not satisfied with the cause shown.  Application for condonation of delay is dismissed, as a consequence of which revision petition is dismissed as barred by time.



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