Case nº Revision Petition No. 1548 Of 2011, (Against the Order dated 07/09/2007 in Appeal No. 1241/2007 of the State Commission Karnataka) of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, August 30, 2011 (case 1. Bescom and Ors. 2. The Execution Engineer (Ele) Bescom Vs 1. H. Manjappa and Ors. 2. Smt. Susheelamma 3. Sri H.M. Manjunath)
| Judge | For Appellant: Mr. Kashi Vishweshwar, Adv. and For Respondents: Nemo |
| President | Mr. R. K. Batta, Presiding Member and Mr. Anupam Dasgupta, Member |
| Resolution Date | August 30, 2011 |
| Issuing Organization | National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission |
Order:
Mr.R.K. Batta, Presiding Member
The District Forum allowed the complaint partly and had directed the opposite parties including the petitioners to jointly pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainants. The said compensation was apportioned between the opposite parties. The petitioners were directed to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- and opposite party No. 1 Manju Nath was directed to pay Rs. 1,00,000/-. The present petitioners were directed to pay the entire compensation in the first instance and liberty was granted to recover the half of the same from opposite party No.1, Manju Nath. The opposite parties were also directed to pay interest @ 9% from the date of complaint till effective payment alongwith cost of Rs.1,000/-. The order of the District Forum was challenged in appeal before the State Commission by the present petitioners as also opposite party No.1 Manju Nath. The State Commission dismissed the appeal vide order dated 7.9.2007. Instead of challenging the said order by way of revision before this Commission, the petitioners and opposite party No.1 Manju Nath chose to file Writ Petitions under article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka at Bengalore. The Hon''ble High Court while disposing of the Writ Petitions held that against the impugned order, a revision to the National Commission was provided for and when the petitioners had an alternative and efficacious remedy provided under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, it was inappropriate for the Court to entertain the Writ Petitions. The Writ Petitions were accordingly rejected with liberty to the petitioners and opposite party No.1, Manju Nath to avail of the statutory remedy. The petitioners had deposited a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- pursuant to the interim order passed by the High Court which had been allowed to be withdrawn by the complainants.
The petitioners have challenged the impugned order dated 7.9.2007 of the State Commission by filing a revision petition with an application for condoning the delay of 1208 days in filing the revision petition. We have heard counsel for the petitioner on the question of condonation of delay. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgement of the Apex Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs MST Katiji & Ors. (1987) 2 SCC 107, Om Prakash Saini Vs DCM Limited & Ors. (2010) 11 SCC 622 and Coal India Limited & Anr. Vs Ujjal Transport Agency & Ors.(2011) 1 SCC...
To continue reading
Request your trial