CourtKutchehry.com
Tribunals and Commissions

Shah Dilip Kumar Jayantilal vs Shobhaben Ambadas Potbatini

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission · Decided on 16 March 2015 · Citation: (2015) 03 NCDRC CK 0147

HON’BLE JUDGES
K.S.CHAUDHARI J.
RESULT
Petition dismissed
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 384 words
1.

THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 26.02.2007 passed by the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad (in short, ''the State Commission'') in Appeal No. 662 of 2004 Shah Dilipkumar Jayantilal Vs. M/s. Valsad District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum and Ors. by which, while dismissing appeal order of District Forum allowing complaint was upheld.

2.

BRIEF facts of the case are that Complainant/respondent filed complaint before District forum and learned District Forum by order dated 14.8.2003 allowed complaint and directed OP/petitioner to provide new plain photo copier machine or to pay Rs.97,000/ - with 16% p.a. interest and also to pay Rs.750/ - as legal expenses. Appeal filed by OP No. 1 was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed along with application for condonation of delay.

3.

HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and perused record. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is delay of 5 years in filing revision petition which may be condoned as complainant did not file execution petitioner against the petitioner for such a long period; so, petitioner did not file revision petition.

4.

AS there is delay of 2151 days in filing revision petition without any cogent reason except the reason that execution petition was not filed by complainant, I do not find any ground for condonation of delay in the light of the judgment passed by the Hon''ble Apex Court and the National Commission in (1) Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation and Anr., 2010 5 SCC 459; (2) Office of The Chief Post Master General and Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. and Anr., 2012 3 SCC 563 and (3) Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority,2012 2 CPC 3.

5.

THUS , it becomes clear that there is no reasonable explanation at all for condonation of inordinate delay of 2151 days. In such circumstances, application for condonation of delay is liable to be dismissed. As application for condonation of delay is to be dismissed, revision petition being barred by limitation is also liable to be dismissed.

6.

CONSEQUENTLY , the revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed as barred by limitation at admission stage with no order as to costs.