NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/1513/2011

LALIT PAREKH - Complainant(s)

Versus

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS. - Opp.Party(s)

BSK LEGAL

22 Sep 2011

ORDER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
 
REVISION PETITION NO. 1513 OF 2011
 
(Against the Order dated 19/01/2011 in Appeal No. 2095/2010 of the State Commission Rajasthan)
1. LALIT PAREKH
C/o. Friends Road Lines, Malgodam Road, Nimbahera
Chittorgarh
Rajasthan
...........Petitioner(s)
Versus 
1. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS.
Through its Branch Manager, 48, Tagore Marg
Neemuch
Madhya Pradesh
2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.
Through its Branch Manager
Chittorgarh
Rajasthan
...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. C. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. S. K. NAIK, MEMBER

For the Petitioner :
Mr. Avanish Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent :
Mr. Sanjay Chetry, Advocate for
Mr. A. K. De, Advocate

Dated : 22 Sep 2011
ORDER

Aggrieved by the order dated 19.01.2011 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disptues Redressal Commission, Jaipur (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in appeal No. 2095 of 2010, the original complainant has filed this revision petition in order to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of this Commission under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The State Commission dismissed the appeal of the complainant which he filed against the order of the District Consumer Forum solely on the ground that the same was filed after the statutory period of limitation and there were no sufficient grounds to condone the delay although an application was filed seeking condonation of delay alongwith the memorandum of appeal.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would assail the impugned order primarily on the ground that it is not based on correct and proper appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case and the material produced on record by the complainant/appellant in support of his application seeking condonation of delay.  In this behalf, our attention has been invited to the copy of the application,

-3-

which the complainant filed before the State Commission, accompanying affidavit of the complainant-petitioner as also two medical certificates, one dated 19.05.2010 certifying therein that the complainant was ailing and was medically unfit for a period of two and half months and another certificate of fitness dated 31.08.2010 declaring him fit to resume his duties.  Going by the cryptic order passed by the State Commission, it appears that the State Commission has not cared to look into the averments made in the application and affidavit, what to talk of referring to the said documents filed by the appellant in support of the said application.  In our view, having regard to the above material, the State Commission has committed grave error of law in dismissing the application for condonation of delay. 

We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and allow the application for condonation of delay and remit the appeal to the Board of the State Commission for deciding the same on merits in accordance with law, preferably within a period of three months from the date of appearance of the parties before    it.    The   parties   are 

 

-4-

directed  to  appear before the State Commission on 10.10.2011 for receiving further directions in the matter.

The revision petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

 

 

 
......................J
R. C. JAIN
PRESIDING MEMBER
......................
S. K. NAIK
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.