NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/2538/2005

C.R.APPARNA - Complainant(s)

Versus

SRINIVAS MALLYA - Opp.Party(s)

T.S.SHANTHI

09 Oct 2009

ORDER

Date of Filing: 28 Sep 2005

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. No. RP/2538/2005
(Against the Order dated 18/03/2003 in Appeal No. 313/2003 of the State Commission Karnataka)
1. C.R.APPARNAMADIKERI TALUK TALUK ...........Appellant(s)

Vs.
1. SRINIVAS MALLYA KENSHEGE ESTATE KENGIGE POST CHIKAMANGALURE ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN ,PRESIDENTHON'BLE MR. B.K. TAIMNI ,MEMBER
For the Appellant :T.S.SHANTHI
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 09 Oct 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.

REVISION PETITION NO. 2538  OF  2005

      (Against the order dated 18.3.03

in Appeal/ No.313 of 2003

      Of the State Commission,

  Karnataka )

C.P. APPARNA

........ Petitioner (s)

Vs.

 

SRINIVAS MALLYA

........ Respondent(s)

REVISION PETITION NO. 2539  OF  2005

      (Against the order dated 18.3.03

in Appeal/ Complaint No.301 of 2003

      Of the State Commission,

Karnataka )

C.P. APPARNA

........ Petitioner (s)

Vs.

 

M. SHANTHI KAMATH

........ Respondent(s)

REVISION PETITION NO. 2540  OF  2005

      (Against the order dated 18.3.03

in Appeal/ Complaint No.307 of 2003

      Of the State Commission,

Karnataka )

C.P. APPARNA

........ Petitioner (s)

Vs.

 

VANI KAMATH

........ Respondent(s)

REVISION PETITION NO. 2541  OF  2005

      (Against the order dated 18.03.03

in Appeal/ Complaint No.302 of 2003

      Of the State Commission,

Karnataka )

C.P. APPARNA

........ Petitioner (s)

Vs.

 

SARASWATHI BAI

........ Respondent(s)

REVISION PETITION NO. 2542  OF  2005

      (Against the order dated 18.03.2003

in Appeal/ Complaint No.306 of 2003

      Of the State Commission,

Karnataka )

C.P. APPARNA

........ Petitioner (s)

Vs.

 

VIKRAM KAMATH

........ Respondent(s)

REVISION PETITION NO. 2543  OF  2005

      (Against the order dated 18.03.03

in Appeal/ Complaint No.304 of 2003

      Of the State Commission,

Karnataka )

C.P. APPARNA

........ Petitioner (s)

Vs.

 

MASTER VIJAY KAMATH

........ Respondent(s)

REVISION PETITION NO. 2544  OF  2005

      (Against the order dated 18.03.03

in Appeal/ Complaint No.303 of 2003

      Of the State Commission,

Karnataka )

C.P. APPARNA

........ Petitioner (s)

Vs.

 

MASTER VIJAY KAMATH

........ Respondent(s)

            

 

BEFORE:

 

          HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN, PRESIDENT

          HONBLE MR. B. K. TAIMNI, MEMBER

 

For the Petitioner        :   Ms. T. S. Shanti, Advocate


 

Dated 9th October,  2009

 

ORDER

          These revision petitions were clubbed together for hearing with revision petition No.3459-3517/2008.  Since we are disposing of these revision petitions on the ground of Delay, the same are separated.

          These revision petitions have been filed with a delay of 823 days which is over and above the statutory period of 90 days given for filing the revision petition.  Under the Consumer Protection Act,1986 authority under the Act is supposed to decide the complaint/appeal within 90 days from its filing where no evidence is required to be taken and in case where evidence is required to be taken, within 150 days.  The inordinate delay of 823 days cannot be condoned without sufficient cause being shown.  We have gone through the application for condonation of delay.  We are not satisfied with the cause shown.  Dismissed on the ground of ‘Delay’.

            It needs to be observed that the petitioner had filed the appeals before the State Commission with a delay of 182 days.  The State Commission has dismissed the appeals on the ground of Limitation.  The statutory period given for filing the appeal is 30 days.  Delay of six times over the period given for filing the appeal could not have been condoned.  The State Commission is right in dismissing the appeals on the ground of delay.



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