Ram Lautan Singh vs Asgar Aki

PETITIONER being aggrieved of the dismissal of his appeal by U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow (short, "State Commission") for non -prosecution has preferred this revision petition.

LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has contended that impugned order has been passed in absence of the petitioner, if the order is allowed to prevail; it would result in grave injustice to the petitioner. It is contended that absence of the petitioner before the appellate forum was unintentional. He was assured by his counsel that he would take care of the proceedings in the appeal and keep the petitioner informed. It is submitted that as and when petitioner approached his counsel to find out the status of his appeal, the counsel told that appeal was not listed for hearing. Thus, the petitioner was under the impression that his counsel was taking care of the appeal and for this reason, he failed to put in appearance in the appellate fora. Learned counsel has thus summed up that for the fault of the advocate, the petitioner should not be penalized.

ON perusal of record, we find that the consumer complaint against the opposite party was filed in the year 2000. Learned District Forum dismissed the consumer complaint vide its order dated 30.10.2000. The appeal against the order of the District Forum was filed before the State Commission in December, 2000. The appeal remained pending due to non -prosecution till 22.8.2013, when the State Commission dismissed the appeal for non -prosecution with the following observations : - "None is present from both the sides. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the impugned judgment and order dated 30.10.2000 passed by District Consumer Forum, Shravasti in Complaint No.100/2000. Whereas in the instant matter, none is appearing from the side of appellant for making pairvi in the appeal nor any step has been taken for issuance of notice to the respondents. Hence, the instant appeal is dismissed in default of appellant and also for not taking steps. Let a true copy of this judgment be made available to both the parties as per rules."

The above explanation of the petitioner for his failure to appear before the appellate fora is not acceptable. Undisputedly, the appeal was filed in the year 2000 and it came to be dismissed on 22.08.2013. It is highly improbable that a prudent man in normal course of circumstances after filing of the appeal would be satisfied with the lame excuses of the counsel and sleep over the matter for more than 12 years without bothering to make an effort to find out the outcome of the appeal from the fora concerned. Thus, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order.

OTHERWISE also, the revision petition has been filed after the expiry of period of limitation with a delay of 390 days. An application for condonation of delay in this regard has been moved. Only explanation for the delay in filing of the revision petition is that the petitioner came to know about dismissal of his appeal on 17.09.2014, when he received free copy of the impugned order. We are not inclined to believe this explanation. It is unimaginable that a person after filing appeal in the year 2000 would not find out about the fate of his appeal by approaching the Registry of the State Commission. Thus, we find no reason to condone the delay also.

IN view of the discussion above, revision petition is dismissed.