ANALYTICAL TECHNOLOGIES LTD Vs. MANEESHA PATTAN SHETTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act") has been filed by M/s Analytical Technologies Ltd., the Opposite Party, against order dated 06.01.2014 passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Bangalore (for short "the State Commission") in Appeal No. 605 of 2013. By the impugned order, the State Commission, while holding that order dated 30.11.2012 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bangalore (for short "the District Forum") in Complaint Case No. 1764/2012, preferred by the Complainant, Respondent herein, did not suffer from any perversity or incorrect findings, has dismissed the said Appeal, preferred by the Petitioner herein, on two grounds; firstly that the Appeal was barred by limitation and secondly, the Petitioner was guilty of supplying faulty equipment to the Complainant, Respondent herein, and accordingly there was deficiency of service on its part. The District Forum had held that since the equipment supplied by the Petitioner to the Respondent was faulty, for which the Respondent had to suffer both financially and mentally, there was deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioner. Consequently, the District Forum, while allowing the Complaint, directed the Petitioner to refund to the Respondent a sum of Rs. 7,00,000/- with 12% interest per annum from 20.04.2012, i.e. the date when the equipment was returned, besides Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2000/- as litigation costs.

(2.) Being aggrieved with the order passed by the District Forum, the Petitioner filed Appeal before the State Commission, however, with a delay of 119 days. As noted above, the State Commission has dismissed the Appeal on the ground of limitation as well as on merits. Hence, the present Revision Petition.

(3.) Leaving aside the merits of the case, we have heard learned counsel for the Petitioner on the question of delay.