: 4/2012. : 31/08/2012. : 23/10/2013. : 01 01 23 , , : . ... , 56 , : , . .. (), . , . .
1. ., (), . , . . ( .2 .)
2. (), , : , .. , , , .
3. (), , : , . .. , , . , . .
4. (), , : , . .. (), . , . .
5. (), , : , . .. (), . , . .
6. (), , : (), . .. (), . , . .
7. (), , : , . .. (), . , . .
8. (), , : (), . .. (), . , . .
9. (), , : , . .. (), . , . .
10. (), , : , . .. (), . , . .
11. (), , : , . .. (), . , . .
12. (), , : , . .. (), . , . .
13. (), , : , . .. (), . , . .
14. (), , : , . .. (), . , . .
15. (), , : , . .. (), . , . . :- . . , . . , : .. .3 7 9 : .. .4, 6, 10 11 : . . , :-
1. , .1 .6/4/2004 .000063 .50,000/- .6/11/2009 .1,00,000/- . . .16/4/2010 .196/2010 . / ( DID ) . .
2. .3 7 9 . .196/2010 .26/6/2012 (...) - . : 30 . . , .1 . . .4 . , .
3. .
4 . , .
1. ? .
2. ? .
4. :- .196/2010 ( . 1 D.I.D. ) . . : . , . :
5. .3 7 9 .196/2010 .26/6/2012 (...) - : 30 . . , .196/2010 .28/6/2012 , . . .. // , 2 (2005) ... 105 , Mr. Walanju says as per judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of New India
v. reported in II (2000) SLT 520=II (2000) CLT 30 Assurance Co. Ltd. R. Srinivasan, (SC)=(2000) 3 SCC 242 the complainant ought to have moved the application before the concerned District Forum seeking restoration of the complaint and filing of the appeal was not the remedy. We have perused the said judgment and noticed that the Supreme Court has held that Consumer Disputes Redressal Agencies possessed inherent powers of jurisdiction to restore the complaint dismissed for default on sufficient cause being shown. Since, however, the complainant has filed the appeal herein and he is appearing in person, in interest of justice, we think it appropriate that he should be given chance to work out his matter on merits. It is also necessary to know that District Forum has proceeded to dismiss the complaint on the basis of Dismissal Simplictor and that has not adverted to the factual aspects as also the merits thereof. Hence in interest of justice, we are allowing the appeal and restoring the Complaint No. 235/2000 on the file of South Mumbai District Forum.
6. ( D.I.D. ) : , . - .
7. ? . , 2005 14 - . , ( D.I.D. ) : - , 1986 . , 2005 14 . :-
14. Limitation. -(1 ) Subject to the provisions of sections 15, 19 and 24a, the period of limitation in the following matters shall be as follows:-
(i) Revision Petition shall be filed within 90 days from the date of the order or the date of receipt of the order as the case may be;
(ii) Application for setting aside the order under section 22A or dismissal of theex-parte complaint in default shall be maintainable if filed within thirty days from the date of the order or date of receipt of the order, as the case may be;
(iii) An application for review under sub-section (2) of section 22 shall be filed to the National Commission within 30 days from the date of the order or receipt of the order, as the case may be;
(iv) The period of limitation for filing any application, for which no period of limitation has been specified in the Act, the rules of these regulations shall be thirty days from the date of the cause of action or the date of knowledge. (2) Subject to the provisions of the Act, the Consumer Forum may condone the delay in filing an application or a petition referred to in sub-regulation (1) if valid and sufficient reasons to its satisfaction are given.
8. 1 (4) 30 . .196/2010 .26/6/2012 : .31/8/2012 . 15 . , , . 15 . . . , 30 . , .1 .
9. .
1. . ( . . ) ( . . ) ----00---- ( //231013 ) [HON'ABLE MR. Dinesh R. Mahajan] PRESIDENT [HON'ABLE MRS. V.J. Dalbhanjan] MEMBER