Case nº Revision Petition No. 2330 Of 2016, (Against the Order dated 09/12/2015 in Appeal No. 142/2015 of the State Commission Himachal Pradesh) of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, November 22, 2016 (case 1. Bhagatram Motorway Private Limited 2. Chief Executive, G.M. India Marketing Vs Nitin Kumar and Ors.)

Judge:For Appellant: Mr. Pawan Kr. Bansal
President:Mr. Ajit Bharihoke,Presiding Member and Dr. S.M. Kantikar,Member
Defense:Consumer Law
Resolution Date:November 22, 2016
Issuing Organization:National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Order:

  1. The petitioner being aggrieved of the order of the State Commission dated 9.12.2015 whereby the State Commission confirmed the order of the District Forum qua the petitioner has preferred this revision petition.

  2. Revision petition, however, has been filed after the expiry of period of limitation of 90 days with a delay of 145 days as per the Registry (144 days as per the petitioner). Explanation for delay is detailed in para Nos. 3 & 4 of the application for condonation of delay which paras are reproduced as under: -

    "That in the present matter the petitioner was trying to trace the record related to the present matter and conducted an internal enquiry to find out as to how the said mistake of typing wrong date on the sale certificate happened.

    That in the said process it took a long time to the petitioner to reach unto the truth and in the meanwhile, inadvertently a delay of 144 days has occurred."

  3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the delay in filing of revision petition is unintentional. It is submitted that one of the grounds for deciding the consumer complaint against the petitioner is regarding sale of the vehicle manufactured in earlier year to the respondent/complainant representing the same to be manufactured in the year 2013. It is argued that the Fora below were misled in coming to that conclusion because of typographical error in the sale invoice...

To continue reading

Request your trial