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



M/s. Marketing Times Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. v/s Madan Verma & Another

    Revision Petition No. 3420 of 2017

    Decided On, 07 December 2017

    At, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN
    By, PRESIDING MEMBER

    For the Petitioner: Mohd. Aniul Ansari, Jauhar Ali, Advocates. For the Respondents: In person.



Judgment Text

Oral:

This revision petition is directed against the order of the State Commission dated 26.9.2016, whereby the said Commission partially modified the order passed by the District Forum, consequently reducing the obligation of the petitioner and directing it to pay Rs.60,975/- along with interest @ 11.79%. Since there is a delay of 313 days, i.e. more than ten months in fling the revision petition, an application seeking condonation of the said delay has been filed.

2. A perusal of the certified copy of the impugned order would show that the State Commission sent a free copy of the said order to the petitioner by Registered Post on 19.10.2016. In the application seeking condonation of delay, the petitioner has not categorically denied having received a free copy of the impugned order from the State Commission in October, 2016. The petitioner has rather taken a vague plea that it had asked its employees about receiving the copy of the said order by speed post / registered post or any other mode from the State Commission but the employees could not search any notice as most of the record has been ruined in March, 2017 and has been changed into heaps of ashes by the sudden fire in its office.

3. In the absence of a categorical denial of the receipt of the free copy of the order from the State Commission, it cannot be accepted that the petitioner was not aware of the impugned order before it received the notice of the execution application. In fact, even the date of the receipt of the notice of the execution petition has not been disclosed in the application, seeking condonation of delay in filing the revision petition.

4. Moreover, there is absolutely no documentary proof of the alleged fire in the office of the petitioner in March, 2017. In these circumstances, it cannot be accepted that the petitioner was not aware of the impugned order prior to 6.10.2017, when it claims to have inspected the record of the State Commission.

5. Though, even a delay of more than ten months in filing the revision petition can be condoned but this can only be done if the sufficient reason shown for the condonation of the said delay. One of the objectives behind the enactment of the Consumer Protection Act is to provide an expeditious remedy to the consumers who are aggrieved on account of some defect or deficiency in the goods purchased or the services hired or availed by them. It is towards achieving this objective that the Act enjoins upon the consumer fora to make efforts to decide the consumer complaints within a period of three months. The said statutory objective is bound to be defeated if the delay of more than ten months is condoned without there being a sufficient explanation for the said delay. In fact, the consumer complaint in this case had been filed in the year 2008. Thus more than nine years have already expired since the complaint was instituted. The age of the consumer complaint does not justify the condonation of the delay of

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

more than ten months in filing of this revision petition, without any satisfactory explanation for the said delay. 6. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the revision petition is dismissed. Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed, as barred by limitation.
O R