NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/2110/2006

SMT. CHANDRAMATHY RAGHAVAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE BRANCH MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. PAYYANUR - Opp.Party(s)

P.V.DINESH

17 Jul 2009

ORDER

Date of Filing: 02 Aug 2006

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. No. RP/2110/2006
(Against the Order dated 15/02/2006 in Appeal No. 1032/2003 of the State Commission Kerala)
1. SMT. CHANDRAMATHY RAGHAVANMATHIL P.O. TALIPARAMBA TALUK KANNUR DIST, KERAKA STATE ...........Appellant(s)

Vs.
1. THE BRANCH MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. PAYYANURPAYYANUR PAYYANUT P.O. KERALA STATE -670307 - ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN ,PRESIDENTHON'BLE MR. B.K. TAIMNI ,MEMBER
For the Appellant :Mr.Jojo Jose, Advocate for Mr.P.V. for P.V.DINESH, Advocate
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 17 Jul 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.

MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATON NO.       707      OF     2009

(FOR RESTORATION)

 

On 24.3.2009, this Revision Petition was dismissed on merits as well as for non-prosecution as the counsel for the petitioner was not present on the said date. Counsel for the respondent was present. Since we were dismissing the Revision Petition in absence of the counsel for the petitioner, we reserved liberty with the petitioner to move an application for recall of this order. Present application has been filed for recall of our aforesaid order.
For the reasons stated in the application, we recall our order dated 24.3.2009 and restore the Revision Petition to its original number.
Counsel for the petitioner has been heard on merits today. Appeal before the State Commission was filed along with an application to condone the delay of 100 days. State Commission came to the conclusion that no ground was made out to condone the delay of 100 days, which was three times over the statutory period of 30 days permitted for filing the appeal. Petitioner had received the order of the District Forum on 5.9.2003 and the Appeal was filed on 29.12.2003. No explanation had been given by the petitioner to show as to why the appeal could not be filed within time. Only explanation given by the petitioner in the application for condonation of delay before the State Commission was as under :
“As a matter of fact the Hon’ble District Forum Kannur disposed O.P.No.261/99 on 21st day of June 2003. But I have received the copy of the order only on 5.9.03. i.e., after the expiry of more than 2 months. Thereafter, I have entrusted the order with my husband to take necessary steps to prefer appeal before this Hon’ble Forum. But he had omitted to do necessary things for preferring appeal. Hence, there is a delay of 60 days in preferring the appeal.”
 
          No other explanation was offered. A perusal of the same shows that hardly any ground has been made out for condonation of delay. State Commission was right in dismissing the appeal on limitation. Dismissed.


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