NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/2786/2012

KLM ROYAL DUTCH AIRLINES - Complainant(s)

Versus

VARUN KUMA TIWARI - Opp.Party(s)

MR. AMIR SINGH PASRICH

09 Aug 2012

ORDER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
 
REVISION PETITION NO. 2786 OF 2012
 
(Against the Order dated 27/06/2012 in Appeal No. 141/2012 of the State Commission West Bengal)
1. KLM ROYAL DUTCH AIRLINES
Through General Manager, 8th Floor, Tower C, Building No.8 DLF Cyber City-Phase II
Gurgaon-122002
Haryana
...........Petitioner(s)
Versus 
1. VARUN KUMA TIWARI
House No.1-1-4/8/1, Armour Nizamabad,
A.P-503224
...........Respondent(s)

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

For the Petitioner :
Mr. Amir Singh Pasrich, Advocate Mr. Aditya Jain, Advocate
Mr. Vinod Joseph, Advocate
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 09 Aug 2012
ORDER

The following order passed by the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dated 27.06.2012 in First Appeal No. 141 of 2012 is impugned by the present petitioner who was the opposite party before the State Commission and respondent in appeal before the State Commission:

 

-2-

          “Appellant is present through Ld. Advocate.  Respondent is absent on calls.  Having heard the Ld. Advocate and on perusal of the application for condonation of delay, we condone the delay.  Delay being condoned we take up the hearing of the admissibility of the appeal.  Heard the Ld. Advocate for the appellant.  Perused the impugned judgement, memo of appeal and other relevant documents.  Considered.  Let the appeal be admitted and registered.  Since the Respondent has already been notified no separate notice is required to be served.  Fix 23.08.2012 for hearing of the appeal and filing BNA.  Both sides are directed to exchange their BNA at least three days before  the date of hearing.”

 

2.      We have heard Mr. A.S. Pasrich, Advocate learned counsel for the petitioner at some length.  He submits that the State Commission was not justified in condoning the delay in filing the appeal on the application made by the appellant.  He would assail the said order firstly on the ground that the application made showed no good ground exercising the judicial discretion in favour of the appellant and in any case, the order given by the State Commission is a non-speaking one.

3.      We have recorded these submissions only for the purpose of record.  Without expressing any opinion on the correctness or otherwise at this stage because the State Commission is yet to decide the appeal pending, we deem it expedient in the interest of justice to dispose of the present petition with the liberty to the petitioner to raise the above pleas if the matter is challenged again by way of further proceedings.

 

-3-

4.      On the request of the counsel for the petitioner, we request the State Commission to decide the appeal as expeditiously as it may be practicable but not later than six months from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order.

          The Revision Petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

 
......................J
R.C. JAIN
PRESIDING 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.