Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Ashok Bhan, President and B.K. Taimni, Member
U.P. AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD - Appellant
Versus
BRIJ KISHORE PANDEY AND ANR. - Respondents
Revision Petition No. 3186 of 2009 from Order dated 29.1.09 in Appeal No. 1014 of 2000 of Uttar Pradesh State Commission
Decided on : 09-10-2009
Mr. Vishnu Sharma, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Lav Kumar Agrawal, Mr. Shailendra Pratap Singh and Mr. Rupesh Kumar, Advocates, for the Respondent
Delay of 111 days cannot be condoned without showing sufficient cause, and reasons such as the file moving from table to table and not knowing about the order passed by the District Forum were not acceptable.
Headnote:
Delay Condonation - Consumer Protection Act - The court dismissed the revision petition due to a delay of 111 days, which exceeded the statutory period of 90 days for filing. The petitioner failed to provide sufficient cause for the delay, and the court found that the reasons given for the delay were not acceptable. Additionally, the court found that the petitioner had no case on merits.
Fact of the Case:
The revision petition was filed with a delay of 111 days, exceeding the statutory period of 90 days for filing. The petitioner failed to provide sufficient cause for the delay and was proceeded ex parte for non-appearance.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the revision petition on the ground of delay and also found that the petitioner had no case on merits.
Issues: Delay in filing the revision petition, sufficiency of cause for the delay, and the petitioner's non-appearance leading to being proceeded ex parte.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that a delay of 111 days cannot be condoned without showing sufficient cause, and the reasons given for the delay, such as the file moving from table to table and the petitioner not coming to know about the order, were not acceptable. Additionally, the court found that the plea of not knowing about the order passed by the District Forum could not be accepted.
Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed on the ground of delay, and the petitioner was found to have no case on merits.
ORDER
1. Present Revision Petition has been filed with a delay of 111 days, which is over and above the statutory period of 90 days given for filing the Revision Petition. Under the Consumer Protection Act, the Consumer Fora are supposed to decide the complaint within a period of 90 days from the date of its filing and, in case, some evidence is required to be led, then within 150 days. Delay of 111 days cannot be condoned without showing sufficient cause.
2. We have gone through the application for condonation of delay. Petitioner has not explained the day-to-day delay. The only reason given is that the file was moving from table to table. It is further stated that the petitioners were proceeded ex parte for non-appearance and, therefore, they came to know about the order later. After the cases are decided under the Consumer Protection Act, a copy of the order is sent to the parties concerned immediately. Plea that the petitioner did not come to know about the order passed by the District Forum cannot be accepted.
3. Revision Petition is dismissed on the ground of delay.
4. Even on merits, petitioner has no case. Dismissed.
