Back
SUBHASH CHANDRA, J. RAJENDRA
CTR Manufacturing Ind. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Mrutyunjay Prasad – Respondent
ORDER
Subhash Chandra, Presiding Member—This Revision Petition has been filed under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, “the Act”) challenging order dated 04.07.2017 of the Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Lucknow (in short, the ‘State Commission’) dismissing Appeal No. 1088 of 2002 confirming the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hardoi (in short, “District Forum”) in Complaint Case No. 162 of 2001 dated 03.04.2002.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and given careful consideration to the material placed on record and the arguments urged before us.
3. For the reasons stated in the application for the condonation of delay of 85 days in the filing of this revision petition, the delay was condoned in the interest of justice.
4. The relevant facts of this case, in brief, are that the respondent, who is a railway contractor, had obtained a quotation from the petitioner for the purchase of a “Rail Electric Weld Trimmer Power Pack Version”, a specialized equipment used specifically for the rail section for which it is intended to be used. An order dated 29.07.1998 for consideration of Rs.1,25,000
State Commission – The appellant is a duly constituted legal entity and is not an individual consumer which had contested the matter for nearly 8 years before the State Commission.
(1) Delay - The delay of each and every day has to be explained.(2) Due Diligence - The basic test to determine whether the delay is reasonable or whether the party has been acting with due diligence....
Condonation of delay by imposition of costs justified.
(1) Usage of goods for earning livelihood does not affect status as a consumer. (2) Revision Petition being used to gain unjust adjournment to extend the matter further.
(1) Commercial Purpose – It is evident that the appellant has failed to substantiate its preliminary objections that the respondent was not a ‘consumer’ under the Act, since it had failed to establis....
(1) Condonation of delay – To condone such delay in filing the Revision Petition, the Petitioner needs to satisfy this Commission that there was sufficient cause for preferring the Revision Petition ....
Limitation – Condonation of delay – Term “sufficient cause” u/Section 5 of Limitation Act should be liberally construed promote substantial justice, when delays are not due to dilatory tactics, bad f....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
