BHAGATRAM MOTORWAY PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. NITIN KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner being aggrieved of the order of the State Commission dated 9.12.2015 whereby the State Commission confirmed the order of the District Forum qua the petitioner has preferred this revision petition.

(2.) Revision petition, however, has been filed after the expiry of period of limitation of 90 days with a delay of 145 days as per the Registry (144 days as per the petitioner). Explanation for delay is detailed in para Nos. 3 & 4 of the application for condonation of delay which paras are reproduced as under: -

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the delay in filing of revision petition is unintentional. It is submitted that one of the grounds for deciding the consumer complaint against the petitioner is regarding sale of the vehicle manufactured in earlier year to the respondent/complainant representing the same to be manufactured in the year 2013. It is argued that the Fora below were misled in coming to that conclusion because of typographical error in the sale invoice. The petitioner therefore conducted an inhouse enquiry to fix the responsibility of the typographical error regarding the date of manufacture in the sale certificate which took quite a long time as a result of which delay in filing of the revision petition has occurred.