EXECUTIVE ENGINEER Vs. V MEENAKSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this revision petition is to the order dated 16.12.2010 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai ('State Commission' in short) by which the State Commission dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners against the order dated 3.1.2006 passed by the District Forum accepting the complaint filed by the complainants, respondents herein.

(2.) IT is observed that there is delay of 285 days in filing this revision petition. We have perused the application filed by the petitioners for condonation of this delay and have also heard Ms. Madhusmita Bora, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners. The petitioner has given the following reasons in support of the delay in filing this revision petition:-

(3.) THE above reasons put forth by the petitioners hardly constitute the sufficient cause justifying the inordinate delay of 285 days in question. No dates have been given by the petitioners while explaining the delay except offering a vague and general explanation. It appears that the petitioners are not at all careful and diligent in pursuing the matter. We are, therefore, not inclined to condone the delay of 285 days in filing this revision petition and the revision petition is liable for dismissal on this ground alone. In respect of the merits also, we do not see any reason or substance in the revision petition which would call for our interference while exercising our revisional jurisdiction. Both the Fora below have returned their concurrent finding against the petitioners while accepting the complaint. Keeping in view the ratio of the judgement given by the Apex Court in the case of Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2011) 11 SCC 269] there is no case to interfere with the impugned order. The revision petition, therefore, stands dismissed in limine. No costs.