NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/2911/2009

ASHOK KUMAR SHARMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

STATE BANK OF INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

MR. SUBHASH CHECHI

14 Sep 2009

ORDER

Date of Filing: 07 Aug 2009

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. No. RP/2911/2009
(Against the Order dated 05/08/2008 in Appeal No. 853/2008 of the State Commission Haryana)
1. ASHOK KUMAR SHARMAS/o Sh. Om Prakash Sharma, R/o House No. 247, Krishan Colony, Palwal Tehsil PalwalFaridabad ...........Appellant(s)

Vs.
1. STATE BANK OF INDIABranch Manager, State Bank of India(Main Branch), GT Road, Palwal, Tehsil Palwal, Faridabad ...........Respondent(s)

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

Dated : 14 Sep 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 159 days which is over and above the statutory period given for filing the revision petition.  Under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 consumer foras are required to decide the cases within 90 days and in case some evidence is required to be taken, within 150 days.  The delay of 159 days, under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 under


-2-

the circumstances, cannot be condoned without showing sufficient cause for delay in filing the revision petition.  We are not satisfied with the cause shown for condonation of delay.  Application for condonation of delay is dismissed.  Accordingly, revision petition is dismissed on ground of ‘Delay’.

            On merits also, we agree with the view taken by the State Commission that there was no privity of contract between the petitioner and the respondent bank.  Claim for damage could lie against the insurance company only which was not arrayed as a party respondent.  Revision petition is dismissed on the ground of ‘Delay’ as well as on ‘Merit’.



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