IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION GUJARAT STATE, AHMEDABAD.

Revision Petition NO. 19/2022 Court No. 1

1. Bechara Bhachu Ravariya Age:57, Occupation: farming/worker, Address: opposite kakariyadham, patel vas, Bhachau- Kutch. …Applicant Vs

1. Manager, Navneet Gas Gandhidham – Kutch

2. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.

Mumbai-400020.

3. The New India Insurance Company Ltd.

Ahmedabad. …Opponents Coram : Hon’ble Mr. Justice V. P. Patel, President Hon’ble Ms. A.C.Raval, Member Apperence : Mr. Nachiket D. Mehta for the petitioner Mr. Nikita S. Barot, Advocate for the opponent no.1 and 2.

Mr. P. S. Thakkar, Advocate for the opponent no.3.

Order by Hon’ble Mr. Justice V. P. Patel, President

1. The Petitioner/ Original Complainant has filed this revision petition under section 47 (1) (b) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 07.05.2022 passed by the learned Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission Bhuj at Kutch (for short Learned District Commission) in miscellaneous application No.11/2021.

2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Nachiket D. Mehta for the petitioner, learned advocate Mr. Nikita S. Barot for the opponent No.1 and 2 and leaned advocate Mr. P.H.Thakker for the opponent no.3 insurance company.

3. Fact of the case: The original complainant has filed Consumer Compliant No. 119/2015 before the Learned District Commission which was decided and disposed on 23.03.2019. At the time of filling the compliant, complainant has mentioned his name as Bhachu Bechara Patel instead of Bechara Bhachu Ravariya. The name of his father was written before the name of complainant. The such mistake was required to be corrected therefore the complainant has filed the review petition to correct the actual name of the complainant. The review petition is required to be filed within 30 days but due to reason stated in the delay condon application he has filed an application to condon delay. Such delay condon application has been rejected by the impugned order. Therefore this revision petition is filed being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order dated 07.05.2012 pass in miscellaneous application no.11/2021.

4. Argument of the applicant : Learned advocate for the applicant has argued that the complainant has filed Consumer Complaint No.115/2019 before the learned District Commission Bhuj at Kutch. The same was allowed on 23.03.2019 the opponent no.3 Insurance Company has filed appeal before the State Commission vide appeal no. 123/2021 which is pending before this commission. It is further argued that at the time of depositing the amount of Rs.1,000/- as cost, it was came to the knowledge of the complainant that the name of his father written before his name by mistake. Therefore, the complainant/petitioner has filed the review application before the Consumer District Commission Bhuj at Kutch. At the time of filling of review application it was found that there is a delay in filling review application therefore, he has filed miscellaneous application no.11/2021 for condonation of delay.

4.1. It is further argued that the order passed by the learned District Commission is erroneous in on fact and law. That the learned District Commission has not considered the benevolent provision of Consumer Protection Act in favour of the consumer that the learned District Commission has erred in rejecting delay condon application. He has requested to allowed this revision petition and set aside impugned order and grant delay condon application filed for the review application.

4.2. Learned advocate for the respondent no.1 and 2 has argued that the order passed by the learned District Commission is correct, legal and valid in eye of law. There is no requirement to interfere in the impugned order. He has requested to dismissed the revision petition

5. Argument of opponent no.3: Learned advocate for the opponent no.3 has argue