Case nº Revision Petition No. 515 of 2013 of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, January 23, 2014 (case Santosh Kumar Bajpai Vs Registration U.P. Housing and Development Council and Anr.)

JudgeFor Appellant: Party-in-Person and For Respondents: Mr. Rajiv Yadav, Advocate
PresidentAjit Bharihoke, J. (Presiding Member) and Suresh Chandra, Member
Resolution DateJanuary 23, 2014
Issuing OrganizationNational Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Order:

Suresh Chandra, Member

  1. This revision petition has been filed to challenge the impugned order dated 5.1.2010 passed by the LLP. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow ('the State Commission', for short) in Appeal No. 1169 of 2002 whereby the State Commission dismissed the appeal of the petitioner, who is also the complainant in this case. By its impugned order, the State Commission while dismissing the appeal had upheld the order dated 5.2.2002 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Kanpur City in Complaint Case No. 183 of 1997 by which the District Forum had partly allowed the complaint of the petitioner. Along with the revision petition, the petitioner has also filed an affidavit/application for condoning the delay of 1043 days in filing this revision petition. We have heard the petitioner who has appeared in person and pleaded his case himself and learned Mr. Rajiv Yadav, Advocate appearing for the respondents.

  2. As regards the delay, the petitioner has submitted that he is a poor person who could not afford to engage a Counsel to pursue his appeal before the State Commission and as such he was pursuing it before the State Commission himself. However, in-between because of the death of his wife and also because of his poverty he could not keep a track of his appeal pending before the State Commission which came to be dismissed by the impugned order. He came to know about it after number of visits to the State Commission Office which eventually resulted in the delay of more than three years. After coming to know of the dismissal of his appeal with the help of some Advocate on 7.2.2013, he immediately took action to file the revision petition with this Commission on 11.2.2013 and in the process the delay in question has taken place which, according to him, was neither deliberate nor intentional but because of his poverty, ignorance and personal difficulties in which he was placed during the period.

  3. The explanation given by the petitioner is vague and general without any documents to support. He has not indicated as to when his wife died and on which dates he visited the State Commission before and after the death of his wife to enquire about the status of his appeal. In view of this, we do not accept the explanation given by the petitioner in support of the delay and hence, the same cannot be regarded as 'Sufficient Cause' for condoning the inordinate delay of 1043 days in filing this revision petition. This...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT