Case nº Revision Petition No. 3718 of 2013 of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, May 21, 2014 (case Narayan Kumar Khaitan Vs Duncan Industries Ltd.)
|For Appellant: Sanjoy Kumar Ghosh and Barun Prasad, Advocates and For Respondents: Gaurav Jain and Abha Jain, Advocates
|K.S. Chaudhari, J. (Presiding Member) and Dr. B.C. Gupta, Member
|May 21, 2014
|National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
K.S. Chaudhari, J. (Presiding Member)
This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against impugned order dated 25.7.2013 passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal (in short, 'the State Commission') in Appeal No. 978 of 2012, Narayan Kumar Khaitan & Ors. v. M/s. Duncan Industries Ltd., by which appeal was dismissed as barred by limitation. Complainant/petitioner in pursuance to order dated 16.10.2008 passed by learned State Commission filed execution application No. 126/2008 before District Forum and learned District Forum vide order dated 25.9.2012 observed that complainant has received amount as per his entitlement and not entitled to get any more amount. Appeal filed by the complainant was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order, as appeal was filed with delay of 53 days against which this revision petition has been filed.
Heard learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in spite of reasonable explanation learned State Commission committed error in dismissing application for condonation of delay and dismissing appeal, hence revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law, hence revision petition be dismissed.
Perusal of record reveals that there was delay of 53 days in filing appeal before State Commission. Complainant in application for condonation of delay filed before State Commission submitted that certified copy of the order was received on 12.10.2012 by the complainant and he sought opinion of the Advocate. He further submitted that on account of Puja vacations, Advocate of the petitioner went out of station and when returned back on 20th November, 2012 he drafted appeal and on 3.12.2012 complainant was intimated and appeal was filed on 19th December, 2012 and in such circumstances, delay occurred in...
To continue readingRequest your trial