H.M. Mardikar And Ors. vs BODHRAJ

COUNSEL for the petitioners heard. There is a delay of 726 days in filing the present Revision Petition. The State Commission dismissed the First Appeal because there was a delay of 196 days. Warning bells should have rung while approaching this Commission. But such a huge delay is clearly indicative of negligence, inaction and passivity on the part of Dr. H.M. Mardikar and Dr. N.V. Deshpande, the petitioners in this case.

THE petitioners have moved an application for condonation of delay. It is explained that the petitioners engaged Sh. Tayade, Advocate to contest this case before the District Forum. He did not file the appeal. This fact came to the knowledge of the petitioners, when the complainant filed an application U/s. 27 and the petitioners received the said notice. Thereafter, the matter was entrusted to Mr. S.M. Ukey, Advocate, who filed the appeal. The said appeal also went unrepresented. Mr. Dage, Proxy Advocate for Sh. Ukey asked for time, which was not granted. Mr. Dage, Proxy Counsel was heard and the case was dismissed. The petitioners were not aware to this fact. They came to know about this fact when they received notice on 23.02.2015, wherein the petitioners were required to appear before the District Forum on 12.03.2015. Due to busy schedule, the petitioners could not remain present in the morning hours. In their absence, the warrants were issued. The petitioners arrived in the second half of the session when the new developments transpired. They came to know that their appeal was decided on 01.02.2013. They moved application for cancellation of warrant. They alleged that their advocates are not attending the Court deliberately. It is prayed that the delay should be condoned.

AS there is a huge delay, therefore, the petitioners have failed to constitute a sufficient ground for condonation of delay in filing the present Revision Petition. Their application itself goes to show that they approached the Court in a lackadaisical manner. They have neither respect for the Court and arrogantly did not appear in the first session of the Commission. Counsel for the petitioners has admitted that no effort was made to take any action against their advocates, namely, Mr. Tayade, Mr. S.M. Ukey and Mr. Dage. The story put forward by the petitioners is not credit -worthy. All the Advocates in this country cannot be so negligent. This has become a fashion and is nothing but a ruse to put the blame on the advocates to make sure to save the limitation period. It is also quite possible that such like pleas can be the after thoughts of the persons/Advocates, who are involved in this case. Day to day delay was never explained. The case is hopelessly barred by time and following authorities neatly dovetail with this view. In Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV : (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), 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, I : (2009) CLT 188 (SC), Ram Lal and Others v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., : AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, Office of the Chief Post Master General and Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. and Anr., [2012] 1 SCR 1045 and Bikram Dass Vs. Financial Commissioner and others, AIR, 1977 SC 1221.

THE latest view was taken by the Apex Court in the case "Sanjay Sidgonda Patl Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors.", decided by the Apex Court while dismissing the Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 37183 of 2013, decided on 17.12.2013, upholding the order of this Commission wherein delay of 13 days was not condoned.

SIMILAR view was taken by the Apex Court while dismissing the Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 33792 of 2013 in Chief Officer, Nagpur Housing and Area Development Board and Anr. V. Gopinath Kawadu Bhagat, decided on 19.11.2013, upholding the order of this Commission where 77 days delay was not condoned and again delay of 78 days was not condoned in the case reported in M/s. Ambadi Enterprises Ltd. Vs. Smt. Rajalakshmi Subramanian, in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 19896 of 2013 decided on 12.07.2013.

IN Banshi Vs. Lakshmi Narain -, 1993 (1) R.L.R. 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 enquired about the case.

IN Jaswant Singh Vs. Assistant Registrar, Co -operative Societies - 2000 (3) Punj. L.R. 83, it was observed that cause of delay was that the counsel of the appellant in the lower Court had told them that there was no need of their coming to Court and they would be informed of the result, as and when the decision comes, was held to be a story which cannot be believed.

IN Bhandari Dass Vs. Sushila, 1997 (2) Raj LW 845, it was held that accusing the lawyer that he did not inform the client about the progress of the case nor had he sent any letter, was disbelieved while rejecting an application to condone delay.

THIS case is hopelessly barred by time, consequently, I hereby dismiss the Revision Petition.