GHANSHYAM Vs. M/S. WIPRO BIO MED LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 21.09.2011 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as "State Commission ") in First Appeal No. 40 of 2011 titled as Ghanshyam Vs. M/s. Wipro Bio Med Limited & Ors., vide which the appeal against the order dated 09.04.2009 passed by the District Forum, Bikaner in complaint No. 101 of 2004 filed by the present petitioner was ordered to be dismissed. The District Forum vide the aforesaid order had dismissed the complaint against the respondent / opposite party.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the petitioner / complainant filed complaint No. 101/2004 against the respondent dated 12.04.2004 under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 saying that he purchased a Machine "Spirit Biochem Cell Counter and Semi Auto Analyzer PDL -95 (Photo meter) " for Rs. 9,18,020/ - from the respondents. Soon after the purchase, the said products started giving problems which could not be resolved, despite repeated complaints, making it clear that these had manufacturing defects. The District Forum dismissed the complaint, holding that there was no deficiency in service, vide their order dated 09.04.2009. An appeal against the order of the District Forum was dismissed by the State Commission. It is against this order that the present petition has come up.

(3.) WE have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us. A perusal of the copy of order in vernacular language attached with the petition, shows that the copy was made by the office of the State Commission on 21.09.2011 itself. Moreover, it is also clear from the order that Shri Bhanwar Singh, Advocate was present in the Court on behalf of the appellant / petitioner when the order, in question was pronounced. In view of these facts, the argument given by the petitioner that he had no knowledge of the impugned order, cannot be believed. There is therefore, no justification for condonation of delay and the petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.