Case nº Revision Petition No. 4186 Of 2012, (Against the Order dated 19/01/2012 in Appeal No. 32/2011 of the State Commission Maharastra) of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, February 24, 2014 (case 1. Bhagwan Nimbwale and Anr. 2. Mr. Vikas Shende Vs Chief Oficer, Nagpur Housing and Area Development Board)
| President | Mr. Ajit Bharihoke, Presiding Member |
| Resolution Date | February 24, 2014 |
| Issuing Organization | National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission |
Order:
Petitioner No.2 has tendered authority letter issued by petitioner No.1 in favour of petitioner No.2 which is taken on record. Petitioners have preferred this revision petition against the order of the Fora below with following prayers: - e, appellants request and pray Hon. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi that: -
1) The Additional District Forum order dt. 29.08.2007 may be set aside and order of the Forum to execute the order passed at Sr.No.2 and 4 of its order dt. 05.05.2003 till order is fully complied.
2) Necessary compensation & cost shall be granted due to harassment in the interest of justice. The revision petition was filed on 2.11.2012. Since the order under challenge is dated 29.8.2007 it is obvious that the revision petition has been filed with inordinate delay of more than five years. The petitioners have not filed a separate application for condonation of delay. However, in the last but one paragraph of the revision petition the petitioners have prayed for condonation of delay, which is reproduced thus: - n case any delay is noticed by this Hon. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, we request to condone the delay which caused to due old ailing father & his subsequent death & consequent rituals. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the delay in filing of revision petition is unintentional. The petitioners were prevented from filing the revision petition within prescribed period of limitation as they were attending to their ailing father who ultimately died. It is submitted that if the delay is not condoned, a grave injustice would be caused to the petitioners. It is well settled that if a petition is filed after the expiry of period of limitation the petitioner in order to condone the delay has to explain each and every day of delay satisfactorily. The above explanation of the petitioners for inordinate delay of more than five years in filing of revision petition is highly unsatisfactory. The petitioners have taken a vague plea to justify the delay. They have not mentioned the details of ailments suffered by their father or the period of those ailments. Petitioners have also not given the dates on which their father expired. No medical certificate has been filed to substantiate the allegation that the father of the petitioners was suffering from some serious ailment. In view of this, I am not inclined to accept the explanation for condonation of delay. In R.B....
To continue reading
Request your trial