CourtKutchehry.com
Tribunals and Commissions(2015) 03 NCDRC CK 0049

PURAN SINGH vs ASSISTANT ENGINEER AJMER VIDHUT VITRAN

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission · Decided on 9 March 2015 · Citation: 2015 2 CPJ 645

HON’BLE JUDGES
J.M. Malik, S.M. Kantikar
CASE NUMBER
NO 2856 of 2014

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 378 words
1.

Learned counsel for the petitioner present. Arguments heard.

2.

There was delay of 1158 days in filing the appeal before the State Commission. The case is hopelessly barred by time. The petitioner is also negligent. He has not tried to place the application for condonation of delay filed before the State Commission. He prays for time. We find that there is no need to grant him time. The complainant?s case on merits is very weak.

3.

The delay of 1158 days cannot be condoned in view of the Supreme Court authorities in Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority , IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) , R.B. Ramlingam v. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) CLT 188 (SC)= I (2009) SLT 701=2009 (2) Scale 108; Ram Lal and Others v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361 and Bikram Dass Vs. Financial Commissioner and others AIR 1977 Supreme Court 1221 and Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. 2012 STPL(Web) 132 (SC).

4.

The Apex Court in a recent case i.e. Sanjay Sidgonda Patil vs. Branch Manager, National Insu. Co. Ltd. & Anr., Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 37183 of 2013 decided on 17.12.2013, confirmed the order of the National Commission and refused to condone the delay of 13 days. Likewise, delay of 78 days was not condoned by the Apex Court in the case of M/s Ambadi Enterprise Ltd. vs. Smt. Rajalakshmi

Subramanian in SLP No. 19896 of 2013 decided on 12.7.2013. Again delay of 77 days was not condoned in case of Chief Off. Nagpur Hous. & Area Dev. Boa & Anr. vs. Gopinath Kawadu Bhagat, SLP No. 33792 of 2013 decided on 19.11.2013.

5.

There is huge delay. However, we have considered the case on merits.

6.

In the written statement, the respondents have clearly stated that the meter was running slowly and was tempered with. The seal of the meter was broken.

7.

Under these circumstances, in view of the Supreme Court Authority reported in U.P. Power Corporation Limited & Ors. vs. Anis Ahmed (2013) 8 SCC 491, this Commission has no jurisdiction to try this case.

8.

The revision petition is dismissed. The petitioner may approach the appropriate forum as per law.