w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n

Javs Engineering (India) Ltd. v/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Company & Directors' Information:- JAVS ENGINEERING (INDIA) LIMITED [Active] CIN = U28920MH1978PLC020504

Company & Directors' Information:- THE INDIA COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999TN1919PTC000911

Company & Directors' Information:- UNITED ENGINEERING COMPANY PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U34201WB1985PTC038966

Company & Directors' Information:- INDIA CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65990MH1941PTC003461

Company & Directors' Information:- THE UNITED ENGINEERING CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U00349KA1946PTC000438


    Decided On, 24 February 2011

    At, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC


    For the Petitioner : Siddharth Aggarwal, Advocate. For the Respondent : -----------

Judgment Text


The complaint filed by the petitioners before the District Forum was dismissed by the District Forum vide its order dated 26.02.2007. When this order was challenged by the petitioner before the State Commission, the State Commission noticed that there was a delay of 12 months and 25 days in filing the appeal. Even though the petitioner had filed an application for condonation of this delay, on consideration thereof, the State Commission was not convinced with the reasons for the delay in question and hence rejected the application for condonation of delay and consequently, the appeal did not survive for consideration. It is against this order that the present revision petition has been filed.

2. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the application for condonation of delay filed by the petitioner before the State Commission. According to the petitioner, the delay before the State Commission was of 365 days and by way of explanation for this delay, it has been submitted in the application that the Advocate of the petitioner even though received a copy of the order of the District Forum on 03.03.2007, did not serve it on the petitioner and hence the petitioner was not aware of any such order being passed by the District Forum on its complaint. Besides this the petitioner also could not follow up with counsel for progress of his complaint for the reason that the petitioner company was facing certain litigation under Scrutinisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assistance and Enforcement of Security Act, 2002. Both the reasons put forth by the petitioner explaining the delay of one year in filing the appeal could hardly be considered as satisfactory or convincing. No fault could, therefore, be found with the impugned order of the State Commission rejecting the same. Besides this aspect of the revision petition, it is also noted at the outset that the present revision petition has been filed with a delay of 221 days. It is submitted in the application for condonation of the delay before us that the impugned order was passed on 09.02.2010 by the State Commission but the Executive Director of the petitioner company who is authorized person and dealing with the litigation was not keeping well for a significant duration and suffered a heart stroke in the month of September 2010 and was admitted and detained in the hospital. Besides this his father was also suffering from depression and high blood pressure. It is also submitted that the petitioner company has been embroiled in proceedings and litigations and was declared as a sick enterprise on 13.04.2006 and hence there has been delay. It is amazing to note that in spite of the fact that their appeal came to be dismissed on the ground of limitation against which order the present revision petition has been filed, the petitioner company rather than taking due pre-caution to ensure that the petition is filed within the prescribed statutory period, has delayed the same by 221 days again. We do not find the reasons put-forth by the petitioner as convincing so as to condone the delay in question. The petitioner company itself is to

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

be held responsible for such belated action on its part. We therefore, do not find any justification to interfere with the impugned order of the State Commission. Besides this, the miscellaneous application filed before us for condonation of delay of 221 days, is also rejected. Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.