Chandrika Developers And Construction vs Alka Narayan Bele

THIS revision petition is directed against the order of the State Commission dated 28.01.2009, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioners against the order of the District Forum dated 03.10.2007 was dismissed in default and non -appearance of the petitioners. Since there is a delay of about 5 years and 10 months in filing the revision petition, an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the revision petition has also been filed by the petitioners.

THE case of the petitioners in the application is that they were advised to file a miscellaneous application before the State Commission itself for restoration of their appeal and the said application came to be dismissed by the State Commission only on 11.01.2012. As regards the delay post -11.01.2012, the case of the petitioners as stated by their counsel is that initially they contacted a local Advocate for challenging the order of the State Commission before this Commission, but the said local Advocate told them that he was not taking up the matters to be filed before National Commission and referred them to other Advocates. Thereafter the petitioners contacted those Advocates, who told the petitioners that they had filed the revision petition, but in fact they had not done so.

THE petitioners have not placed on record any affidavit or even the certificate from the Advocate who allegedly advised them to file a miscellaneous application before the State Commission seeking restoration of the appeal which the State Commission had dismissed on 28.01.2009. The legal position in this regard has been well settled for quite some time and therefore the counsel of the petitioners before the State Commission would be aware that the State Commission does not have a jurisdiction to recall an earlier order dismissing an appeal in default. Be that as it may, even if I presume that the petitioners were acting bonafide and were not merely seeking to prolong the matter by filing the miscellaneous application before the State Commission for restoration of the appeal which had been dismissed in default on 28.01.2009, there is hardly any explanation for the delay between 11.01.2012, when the State Commission dismissed the miscellaneous application filed by the petitioners and 12.02.2015, when this revision petition eventually came to be filed. The application does not disclose the name of the Advocate, who allegedly was first contacted by the petitioners to challenge the order of the State Commission before this Commission. The learned counsel for the petitioners points out that the name of the aforesaid Advocate is Mr. Kakde, which finds mention in the additional affidavit which the petitioners have filed today. The application does not disclose the date, on which the aforesaid Advocate was approached and he allegedly declined to file a revision petition before this Commission. No affidavit of the aforesaid Advocate has been filed by the petitioners. In these circumstances, it cannot be known when the petitioners approached the Advocate Mr. Kakde and when he allegedly told them that he would not be able to file a matter before the National Commission.

THE case of the petitioners is that when Mr. Kakde declined to represent them before this Commission, they approached his two juniors namely Mr. A. M. Gedam, Advocate and Mr. Sudame, Advocates. However, the application does not disclose when Mr. A. M. Gedam and Mr. Sudame, Advocates were contacted by the petitioners. It is claimed that the Advocates had told the petitioners that they would do all the requirements for filing the revision petition but later on, it transpired that they had not filed any revision petition. However, no notice was at any point of time given by the petitioners to the above referred two Advocates, stating therein that despite accepting brief from them and obtaining all necessary papers they had failed to file a revision petition before this Commission. No complaint against the above referred two Advocates has been made by the petitioners to the concerned Bar Council. No affidavit of either of the above referred two Advocates has been filed by the petitioners. In these circumstances, it would be difficult to accept the bald averments made in this regard in the application and affidavit filed by the petitioners.

A person approaching a Court/Forum after expiry of the prescribed period of limitation needs to explain the ''delay'' of each and every day in approaching the Court/Forum. Unfortunately, there is no convincing explanation from the petitioners for not filing this revision petition soon after the State Commission dismissed their miscellaneous application vide its order dated 11.01.2012. Had the petitioner disclosed when they approached Mr. Kakde, Advocate, when they approached Mr. A. M. Gedam and Mr. Sudame, Advocates and when they signed and gave relevant documents to them, it could have been possible to verify whether the delay in filing the revision petition is bonafide or not. In the absence of such particulars, the abnormal delay of about 5 years and 10 months, if computed from the date of the order dated 28.01.2009 and more than 3 years, if computed from the order of the State Commission dated 11.01.2012, cannot be condoned.

ONE of the objectives behind enactment of the Consumer Protection Act is to render justice to the Consumers, who are aggrieved on account of a defect in the product purchased by them or a deficiency in the services hired or availed by them. It is towards fulfilment of those objectives that the Act enjoins upon the Consumer Forum to decide the complaint, as far as possible within the period of 3 months. The said objective is bound to be frustrated if revision petitions filed after 5 years and 10 months of the order of the State Commission are entertained. This is more so where the petitioners have lost before the concerned District Forum.

FOR the reasons stated hereinabove, I hold that no ground for condonation of delay in filing the revision petition is made out. The application is, therefore, dismissed. Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed as barred by limitation.