National consumer disputes redressalcommission new delhi


NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI



Download 3.18 Mb.
Page27/66
Date09.11.2016
Size3.18 Mb.
1   ...   23   24   25   26   27   28   29   30   ...   66

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI       

REVISION PETITION NO. 2432 OF 2014

 (From the order dated 24.04.2014 in First Appeal No. 1641 of 2013 of the U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow)

With IA/3828/2014, IA/3829/2014

(Stay, Exemption from filing translation documents)

  

Kanpur Development Authority Kanpur Nagar, Through Secretary, Office at Motijheel, Kanpur Nagar (U.P.)



                                         …Petitioner/Opp. Party (OP)

 Versus


Lt. Col. Surendra Kumar Jhingran R/o Kanpur Club, Cantonment, Kanpur (U.P.)

                                                             …Respondent/Complainant

 BEFORE

 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER

 HON’BLE MR. VINAY KUMAR, MEMBER

For the Petitioner   :    Mr. Abhishek Chaudhary & Mr. Shantanu Bansal, Advocates

For the Respondent/ Caveator                :   Mr. Krishna Kant Shukla, Advocate

PRONOUNCED ON  15th July,  2014

O R D E R

 PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER         

This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 24.04.2014 passed by the U.P. State Consumer Disputes RedressalCommission, Lucknow  (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in Appeal No. 1641 of 2013 – Kanpur Development Authority Vs. Lt. Col. Surendra Kumar Jhingran by which, appeal was dismissed as barred by limitation.

 

2.      Brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent filed complaint before District Forum and learned District Forum allowed the complaint and directed OP/petitioner not to recover instalments from complainant until the house is made available at the cost of OP and further directed to calculate interest and adjust that amount in the cost of house. Aggrieved by this order, complainant filed appeal before State Commission, which was subsequently withdrawn on 12.9.2007 in the presence of Counsel for the OP.  Later on, petitioner filed appeal against the order of District Forum along with application for condonation of delay of 11 years 4 months and 28 days, which was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed.



 

3.      Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner at admission stage on the application for condonation of delay.

4.      Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that after District Forum’s order, Smt. Sanchita Ghosh published a news in daily Newspaper ‘Aaj’ on 5.6.2007 that complainant Lt. Col. S.K. Jhingaran has not been seen for last 7 years since 2000 and he should be deemed to have died.  On 27.2.2009, Smt.Sanchita Ghosh requested petitioner to comply with the order of District Forum and petitioner asked him to produce probate granted in her favour.  During the pendency of proceedings in 2012, complainant appeared in the office of OP and apprised that he has not executed any ‘Will’ and in such circumstances, he was asked to make payment.  Later on, on 20.12.2012, complainant submitted another application and admitted execution of ‘Will’ / Power of Attorney on 31.5.2000 in favour of Smt. Sanchita Ghosh and insisted for execution of Sale deed.  It was further submitted that delay occurred in filing appeal on these grounds; hence, application for condonation of delay be allowed.  It was further submitted that learned State Commission committed error in dismissing appeal as barred by limitation; hence, revision petition be admitted.

 

5.      Learned State Commission after considering all the aspects and referring many judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court, dismissed application for condoantionof delay of 11 years 4 months and 28 days.  In the application itself we do not find any explanation at all on condonation of delay of more than 11 years.  As per impugned order, appeal filed by the complainant was withdrawn by him in presence of Counsel for the OP meaning thereby, OP was well aware that complainant has challenged order of District Forum before State Commission.  Learned Counsel for the petitioner admitted that neither any appeal, nor any cross-objection was filed by the petitioner before State Commission before filing Appeal No. 1641 of 2013. We do not find any ground for condonation of delay and learned State Commission has not committed any error in dismissing application for condonation of delay and dismissing appeal as barred by limitation in the light of judgements of Apex Court.


 

6.      Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed at admission stage with no order as to costs.

………………Sd/-……………

( K.S. CHAUDHARI, J) PRESIDING MEMBER

………………Sd/-……………



( VINAY KUMAR ) MEMBER

 k

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI

 

REVISION PETITION NO. 2375 OF 2014


(From the order dated 20.02.2014 in First Appeal No. RBT/A/13/62 in First Appeal No. A/12/813 of the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai)

 

Laxmi Co-operative Bank Ltd. Through its Chairman/Manager, 319, South Kasaba, Solapur



…  Petitioner

Versus

Basavraj Sidramappa Yernale Plot No. 4, Rohini Nagar, Part-I, Twin Solapur, Solapur

                                                     …  Respondent

 BEFORE:



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

HON’BLE DR. B. C. GUPTA, MEMBER

For the Petitioner

:

Mr. Lenin Hijam, Advocate

 

 

 




Share with your friends:
1   ...   23   24   25   26   27   28   29   30   ...   66


The database is protected by copyright ©hestories.info 2019
send message

    Main page