Are you looking for a legal research tool ?
Get Started
Do check other products like LIBIL, a legal due diligence tool to get a litigation check report and Case Management tool to monitor and collaborate on cases.

Dr. S.g. Mahalpurkar v. Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Cor

Dr. S.g. Mahalpurkar v. Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Cor

(National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi)

Revision Petition No. 761/2010 | 06-09-2010

In this revision by the complainant filed against the order 31.3.2009 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Maharashtra State, Mumbai, there is delay of 166 / 149 days in filing petition for condoning whereof the petitioner has filed application. Ground taken in condonation application is that the petitioner is a Surgeon by profession and he was not in a position to contact his Advocate. In our view, it is hardly a ground to condone the said inordinate delay. The application, therefore, deserves to be dismissed being without merit and revision petition as barred by limitation. Coming to the merits, indisputably, the petitioner is running a Nursing Home and the water supply by the respondent opposite party corporation to the petitioner is being used in that Nursing Home. Respondent has charged the petitioner at commercial rate of Rs. 810/- . Petitioner alleges that he is liable to be charged at the domestic rate of Rs.270/-. Water used in the Nursing Home run for earning profit by the petitioner would attract commercial rate instead of domestic rate. Petitioner is liable to pay at commercial rate. There is no illegality or jurisdictional error in the order of State Commission holding that the rate applicable to the petitioner would be of Rs.810/-. On both the grounds, the revision petition is dismissed. -1- ......................J K.S. GUPTA PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... S.K. NAIK MEMBER

Advocate List
Bench
  • MR. K.S. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER
  • MR. S.K. NAIK, MEMBER
Eq Citations
  • LQ/NCDRC/2010/1802
Head Note

CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2002 — Ss. 24 and 25 — Revision petition against order of State Commission — Maintainability — Limitation — Delay of 166/149 days in filing petition for condoning — Ground taken in condonation application that petitioner is a Surgeon by profession and he was not in a position to contact his Advocate — Held, hardly a ground to condone said inordinate delay — Application, therefore, deserves to be dismissed being without merit and revision petition as barred by limitation — Water used in Nursing Home run for earning profit by petitioner would attract commercial rate instead of domestic rate — Petitioner is liable to pay at commercial rate — There is no illegality or jurisdictional error in order of State Commission holding that rate applicable to petitioner would be of Rs. 810/- — Revision petition dismissed — Consumer Protection Act, 2002, Ss. 24 and 25