LEGAL APPROACH
Ensuring Legal Services

 
  About Us >>  
  Areas of Practice >>  
  Judgments >>  
  Bare Acts >>  
  Court Websites >>  
  Cause Lists >>  
  Formats >>  
  Contact us >>  
  Blog >>  
  Disclaimer >>  
The Southern Railway vs. Vimal M. Mehta dated 2014-09-08

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

NEW DELHI

 

REVISION PETITION NO. 3028 OF 2014

 (From the order dated 27.09.2013 in Appeal No. 498 of 2013 of the

Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram)

WITH

IA/4898/2014

IA/4899/2014

(STAY, CONDONATION OF DELAY)

1. The Southern Railway

Rep. by its General Manager,

Ernakulam, Kochi-16

 

2. Konkan Railway Corporation

Rep.  by its Divisional Railway

Manager, Thiruvananthapuram                                 …  Petitioners

 

Versus

 

Vimal M. Mehta

S/o Madhukar K. Mehta

House No. 272,

Girinagar, Kadavantra,

Kochi- 682020                                                         …  Respondent

 

BEFORE

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER

HON’BLE DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER

 

For the Petitioner

:

Mr. Apurb Lal, Advocate

 

For the Respondent

:

Ms. Rita Sanghani, Advocate

 

 

 

DATED:  08.09.2014

O R D E R

 

JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)

 

I.A. No. 4899/2014

          This is an application seeking the condonation of delay of 200 days in filing the revision petition.

2.      It is stated in the application that the copy of the order, passed by the State Commission, was received in the office of the petitioner on 24.02.2014 and thereafter, the competent authority decided on 05.03.2014 to file the revision petition before this Commission.  On 11.03.2014, the entire documents were sent to the learned counsel for Railway at New Delhi with instructions to prepare the revision petition.  The learned counsel received the documents in third week of March, 2014. On 30.03.2014, the learned counsel sought clarification on the point of delay.  In the month April, 2014, the learned counsel drafted the revision petition and sent the draft for approval in the first week of May, 2014.  The draft was received back by the learned counsel in second week of May, 2014.  After that the draft and relevant documents were misplaced in the office of the learned counsel during white washing.  The revision petition was ultimately filed in first week of July, 2014. 

3.      In our view, the abnormal delay in filing the revision petition does not stand properly explained.  There is no indication in the application, as to whether the learned counsel, who was representing the petitioner before the State Commission applied for a certified copy of the impugned order and if so, on which date the copy was applied and on which date, it was ready for delivery to him.  It is petitioner’s own case that all the documents were sent to the learned counsel on 11.03.2014 with instructions to prepare the revision petition.  Despite that, the revision petition came to be filed after about four months.  It is claimed in the application that on 30.03.2014, the learned counsel has sought clarification on the point of delay. However, no correspondence between the complainant and the learned counsel has been placed on record.  The learned counsel for the petitioner states that in fact, the clarification was sought on telephone.  If that is so, it must have been provided soon thereafter.  It is further stated in the application that in the month of April, the learned counsel had drafted the revision petition and sent the draft for approval in the first week of May, 2014.  There is no explanation as to why it took so much time in drafting and then sending the draft for approval.  Even after the draft was received back in the second week of May, 2014, no urgency was shown in the matter despite the fact that the revision petition had already become barred by limitation.

4.         The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) interalia held as under:

“It is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, for filing appeals and revisions in Consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the Consumer disputes will get defeated, if this Court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the Consumer Foras”.

 

 

5.      We also take note of the fact that there was delay even in filing the appeal before the State Commission and the said Commission did not find any justified ground for condoning the delay in filing the said appeal.  Considering the conduct of the petitioner and the failure to satisfactorily explain the delay in filing the revision petition, we are not inclined to condone the delay.  Application seeking condonation of delay is accordingly dismissed. 

Since, the application for condoning the delay in filing the revision petition has been dismissed, the revision petition is dismissed as barred by time.

 

 

………………………………

V. K. JAIN, J

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

……………………………….

DR. B.C. GUPTA

MEMBER

PSM/9


© 2008-2014 Legal Approach