NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/3757/2012

HUSEN PEERA - Complainant(s)

Versus

TATA MOTORS LTD. & 3 ORS. - Opp.Party(s)

MR. B. ANAND

16 Oct 2012

ORDER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
 
REVISION PETITION NO. 3757 OF 2012
 
(Against the Order dated 18/03/2010 in Appeal No. 1699/2009 of the State Commission Karnataka)
1. HUSEN PEERA
S/O Adam Sab, House No. 31, Subrayanhalli, Deogiri-583231, Sandur Taluk
Bellary
karnataka
...........Petitioner(s)
Versus 
1. TATA MOTORS LTD. & 3 ORS.
Jamshedpur-831010
Jharkhand
2. S.C. Motors,
Authorised Dealers Of TATA Diesel Vehicles, New Gandhi Nagar, PB Road,
Belgaum-590016
3. Tata Motor Finance,
Bezzola Complex, 1st Floor, V.N. Purav Marg, Chembur,
Mumbai-400071
4. Malleshwara Automobiles, TATA Motor Authorized Service Station,
Opp. Industrial Area, Anantapura Road,
Bellary-583101
...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. SURESH CHANDRA, MEMBER

For the Petitioner :MR. B. ANAND
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 16 Oct 2012
ORDER

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner challenged impugned order dated 18.03.2010 passed by the State Commission by which order of District Forum of dismissing the complaint was upheld. This petition has been filed with delay of 838 days. Petitioner moved application for condonation of delay and submitted that his wife was diagnosed with cancer in March 2010 who was operated in from May to June 2010 and from August 2010 his wife was bedridden and the petitioner was to take care of his wife. He also mentioned that in September, 2010 his wife was referred to Bangalore Kidwai Hospital for further treatment and in October-December 2010 his wife expired. He has not given any specific date of death of his wife and he also mentioned that from February 2011 to May 2012 he suffered stroke of Hemi-perasis on the right side of his body due to which he was unable to move his right side of his body. He has also mentioned that on 16.05.2012 he applied for certified copy of order of the impugned order and he received it on 17.05.2012 and thereafter this petition was filed on 01.10.2012. He has not filed any document pertaining to illness and death of his wife as well his own illness for almost 15 months. Even if for the sake of arguments, it is believed that he was ill upto May 2012, when he obtained copy of order on 17.05.2012 why he filed revision petition after 4 months. He has not given any explanation regarding delay and in such circumstances, inordinate delay cannot be condoned, apparently of 838 days in filing the petition and petition deserves to be dismissed only on the count of delay alone at admission stage. The District Forum dismissed the complaint of the petitioner which order was upheld by the learned State Commission vide impugned order. In such circumstances, the revision petition is dismissed on the count of delay alone at admission stage with no order as to costs.

 
......................J
K.S. CHAUDHARI
PRESIDING MEMBER
......................
SURESH CHANDRA
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.