NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/627/2008

DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM LIMITED - Complainant(s)

Versus

SURAJ BHAN & ORS. - Opp.Party(s)

MR. SANJAY SINGH

29 May 2012

ORDER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
 
REVISION PETITION NO. 627 OF 2008
 
(Against the Order dated 11/12/2007 in Appeal No. 1768/2007 of the State Commission Haryana)
1. DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM LIMITED
THROUGH ITS SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER, OP SUB DIVISION, DHBVNL, TAURU,
DISTRICT GURGAON,
HARYANA
...........Petitioner(s)
Versus 
1. SURAJ BHAN & ORS.
S/o Sh. Dharam Pal, R/o Village & P.O. Wazirabad, House No.115, Atta Mohalla
District Gurgaon
HARYANA
2. SMT. SAROJ YADAV
W/o Suraj Bhan Resident of Village Mundarka, Tehsil Tauru,
District Gurgaon,
HARYANA
3. SMT. MANOJ YADAV
W/o Resident of Village Mudarka, Tehsil Tauru
District Gurgaon
HARYANA
...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN, PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. VINEETA RAI, MEMBER

For the Petitioner :
Mr.Sanjay Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 29 May 2012
ORDER

There was a delay of 94 days in filing the Appeal, which was over and above the period of 30 days, which is statutorily given to an aggrieved party to file the Appeal.  The only explanation given was that the file was moving from table to table to get the permission to file the appeal.  Under the Consumer Protection Act, the District Forum is supposed to decide the complaint within a period of 90 days from the date of filing and, in case, some expert evidence is required to be led, then within 150 days. 

Where the statute has permitted only 30 days for filing the Appeal, delay three times over the statutory period given for filing the Appeal, could not be condoned until and unless some sufficient cause is shown.  Supreme Court, in a recent judgment, Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority – IV(2011)CPJ 63 (SC) has held that while deciding the application filed for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if the appeals and revisions which are highly belated are entertained.  Relevant observations are as under:

“It is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if this court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the consumer foras.”

 

        We agree with the view taken by the State Commission that sufficient grounds were not made out for condoning the delay of 44 days.  Dismissed.

 

 

 
......................J
ASHOK BHAN
PRESIDENT
......................
VINEETA RAI
MEMBER

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.