AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
LEARNED counsel for the petitioner present.
THERE is huge delay of 908 days in filing this revision petition. The petitioner has moved an application for condonation of delay. The delay has been explained in para 2 of the application, which is reproduced as hereunder: " That the petitioner/complainant had won the case and later the Opposite Parties filed the First Appeal No. 1261 of 2011 in State Commission at Panchkula, being the appellant jurisdiction and the State Commission, Panchkula got to issue notice to me and in response, the petitioner contacted Mr. Vaibhav Prashar advocate to contest the case before the State Commission at Panchkula. He got signed a blank Vakalatnama and gave the petitioner case to Advocate B. B. Sharma to argue before the State Commission which even knowing me, whom the petitioner do not even know. That was again shocking that neither Advocate Vaibhav Prashar did not tell me about the loosing of case nor the Advocate B. B. Sharma informed the petitioner/complainant. They only informed that when the case will be taken up they would let the petitioner/complainant inform and would secure my presence while arguing the matter but they did not even inform me about the case listing and loosing of case. The petitioner/complainant therefore, has prima facie a good case in their favour, and the balance of convenience is also in favour of the petitioner that the impugned judgment dated 17.08.2012 passed by the Haryana State Commission, Panchkula in appeal No. FA -1261/2011 which is liable to be set aside on the merits."
LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant has filed the complaint before the Secretary, Bar Council of India. Copy of complaint has been placed on record. This complaint does not bear any date. The said application was filed recently on 1.6.2015. This revision petition was prepared on 1st June, 2015 itself, as is apparent from the verification. This appears to be an afterthought. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that he was not informed by his counsel. There is no evidence nor the pleadings that the petitioner had made an attempt to approach the counsel at his office and kept himself posted with each date of hearing. There is huge delay on the part of the petitioner himself. Moreover, this explanation is fragile and lame of strength. In Banshi Vs. Lakshmi Narain, 1993 1 RLR 68, it was held that reason for delay was sought to be explained on the ground that the counsel did not inform the appellant in time, was not accepted since it was primarily the duty of the party himself to have gone to lawyer''s office and inquired about the case.
THIS view was also taken in Jaswant Singh Vs. Assistant Registrar, Co -operative Societies, 2000 126 PunLR 83, and Bhandari Dass Vs. Sushila, 1997 2 RajLW 845.
MOREOVER , the delay of 256 days was not condoned in the case of Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, 2011 4 CPJ 63 (SC). That case was under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In this case, it was held that : "It is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if this Court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the Consumer Foras".
SIMILAR view was taken in R.B. Ramlingam v. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, 2009 2 Scale 108; Ram Lal and Others v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., 1962 AIR(SC) 361 and Bikram Dass Vs. Financial Commissioner and others, 1977 AIR(SC) 2221 and Office of the Chief Post Master General and Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. and Anr. 2012 STPL(Web) 132 (SC).
THE Apex Court in a recent case i.e. Sanjay Sidgonda Patil vs. Branch Manager, National Insu. Co. Ltd. and Anr., Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 37183 of 2013 decided on 17.12.2013, confirmed the order of the National Commission and refused to condone the delay of 13 days. Likewise, delay of 78 days was not condoned by the Apex Court in the case of M/s Ambadi Enterprise Ltd. vs. Smt. Rajalakshmi Subramanian in SLP No. 19896 of 2013 decided on 12.7.2013. Again delay of 77 days was not condoned in case of Chief Off. Nagpur Hous. and Area Dev. Boa and Anr. vs. Gopinath Kawadu Bhagat, SLP No. 33792 of 2013 decided on 19.11.2013.
THE revision petition is barred by time and, therefore, the same is dismissed as such.
EVEN on merits, we find that the father of the complainant has filed the complaint despite the fact that his minor child has attained the age of majority. Secondly, this is a case against the Educational Institute and as per the latest law, consumer fora have got no jurisdiction to try such like cases.