KRISHNA vs Dhbvn

THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 4.8.2009 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula ( ''State Commission '' for short) by which the State Commission allowed First Appeal No.3469 of 2001 filed by the respondent / opposite party and set aside the order dated 8.8.2001 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rewari.

THERE is delay in filing this revision petition for which the petitioner has filed I.A. No.171 of 2013 praying for condonation of the delay. There is no indication about the period of delay in the application of the petitioner and the space regarding the number of days of delay has been left blank. Since the impugned order was passed on 4.8.2009 and the same was received by the petitioner on 18.8.2009 and yet the revision petition came to be filed by the petitioner on 9.1.2013, it is seen that there is delay of 1150 days beyond the prescribed period of limitation. We have perused the application filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay and heard Mr. Himanshu Gupta, Advocate, counsel for the petitioner. It is submitted by the petitioner that after engaging her counsel to pursue the First Appeal No.3469 of 2001 filed by the respondent before the State Commission, she had engaged another person, viz., Mr. Pradyuman Yadav, Advocate as her counsel. It is submitted that though she was in touch with the said counsel but he kept on assuring her that the appeal was pending before the State Commission. However, in the meanwhile she was in dark about the impugned order of the State Commission accepting the appeal of the respondent and as such believed that the matter was still pending for final decision. In view of this, it is submitted by her that because of the conduct of her counsel, she was misled and came to know about the decision of the State Commission against her some time in 2012 and accordingly applied for certified copy which was received on 27.9.2012. Learned counsel has submitted that she is a poor lady who is not familiar with the legal provisions and procedures, and as submitted in the application, the delay in question was unintentional and occurred due to inadvertence and for the reasons beyond the control of the petitioner since she was misled by her advocate.

WE have considered the application of the petitioner for the condonation of delay. The reasons and the explanation put forth by the petitioner are general and vague. Admittedly, no action has been taken by the petitioner against the Advocate who is alleged to have kept her in the dark and thereby misled her regarding the decision of the State Commission. According to the petitioner, the free copy of the impugned order had been supplied to the parties/counsel on 18.8.2009. Without specifically denying the knowledge about or the receipt of the free copy of the impugned order supplied by the Commission, it is simply stated that the certified copy of the impugned order was not received by her from her counsel. We are unable to accept this story which appears to have been cooked up by the petitioner as an afterthought to justify such a long and inordinate delay of about three years in filing the petition.

BESIDES the fact that no action was taken by the petitioner against the concerned Advocate for this serious professional lapse on his part, it is unbelievable that the petitioner would be unaware about the impugned order for such a long time. In fact, it is stated inpara4 of the application that the petitioner instituted execution proceedings on 31.8.2010 against the respondent for compliance of the order of the District Forum dated 8.8.2001. Firstly, it is not understood as to how the petitioner could file the execution petition without ascertaining the fate of the appeal filed by the opposite party before the State Commission to which she was a party and where she had also engaged a counsel for representing her. Besides this, if she was really not aware of the impugned order having been passed on 4.8.2009, it is not understood as to why she waited for such a long time of more than 8 years to approach the District Forum for execution of the order which had been passed on 8.8.2001. It is obvious that she must have come to know about the impugned order but in order to justify the inordinate delay on her part in filing the present revision petition and to prove her "bonafides " in the matter, she has mentioned about the filing of the execution petition on 31.8.2010. In this context, no documents have been placed before us, which would indicate institution of the execution proceedings on 31.8.2010. Even if the execution petition was filed on 31.8.2010, it is highly improbable that the petitioner would not come to know about the impugned order for the next more than two years of the pendency of the execution petition before the District Forum. Nothing has been mentioned about the issuance of notice by the District Forum in the execution proceedings to the respondent and further progress of the execution petition. In view of the above factual position which emanates from the application and the oral submissions made by learned counsel, we are not at all convinced about the explanation and reasons put forth by the petitioner to justify the delay of more than three years in filing this revision petition. Even after receipt of the certified copy on 27.9.2012, the petitioner has taken more than 90 days to file the revision petition. In view of this, her application for condonation of delay is dismissed. With this, the revision petition also stands dismissed as hopelessly barred by limitation. Revision Petition dismissed.