Shakti Gas Services vs Ramesh Bhagwan Rajguru

LEARNED counsel for respondent no.2 has filed his vakalatnama, which is taken on record.

AN application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for restoration of the revision petition, which was dismissed in default due to non -appearance of petitioner as well as its counsel on 27.02.2013. Along with it application seeking condonation of delay has also been filed, in which no period of delay has been mentioned at all.

ON 27.02.2013, when the matter was listed for admission hearing, there was no appearance on behalf of the petitioner. Hence, revision petition was dismissed in default despite matter had been called twice. Application for restoration has been filed on 02.09.2014. Thus, there is delay of about 18 months. The main grounds on which condonation of delay has been sought are, that on 02.01.2013, a proxy counsel appeared on behalf of the petitioner''s counsel. An application for adjournment had already been filed on behalf of the petitioner, and as such, matter was adjourned to 27.02.2013. It is stated that clerk of counsel failed to notice the matter in the daily cause list as was to be listed on 27.02.2013 and the same was not brought to the knowledge of the counsel for the petitioner. The counsel of the petitioner also, inadvertently and due to oversight could not notice/mark the listing of the instant matter. Thereafter, when clerk of the counsel for the petitioner had gone to inquire about the matter, it came to the knowledge that the above mentioned matter was already dismissed in default. It is further stated that free copy of the order dated 27.02.2013 was not received by the petitioner. Thereafter, petitioner applied for certified copy of the order, which was obtained on 04.08.2014. Then, present application for restoration of revision petition was filed on 02.09.2014. It is further stated by learned counsel for petitioner, that there was mistake on the part of the clerk of the counsel for petitioner and as such, delay should be condoned.

ON the other hand, learned counsel for respondent no.2 submitted that there is long delay of 18 months in filing of application for condonation of delay but no sufficient reason whatsoever has been given. Even otherwise also, there is delay of 155 days in filing of the revision petition.

COMPLAINANT /Respondent No.1 had booked a Cooking Gas Cylinder with the petitioner/Opposite Party No.1. There was an explosion of gas cylinder with the result that respondent no.1 suffered certain damages to his house. Thereafter, respondent no.1 filed a Consumer Complaint before the District Forum, which was allowed. Petitioner as well as respondent no.2/Opposite Party No.2 were directed jointly and severally to pay Rs. 1 Lakh to the respondent no.1.

BEING aggrieved, petitioner as well as respondent no.2 filed separate appeals before the State Commission, which dismissed the appeal of the petitioner.

NOW , petitioner has filed the present revision petition challenging the impugned order passed by the State Commission.

THE revision petition is accompanied by an application seeking condonation of delay of 155 days.

ADMITTEDLY , there is delay of more than 18 months in filing of the application for restoration. In the application for condonation of delay filed along with restoration application, no plausible explanation at all has been given by the petitioner. It is admitted fact that on 27.02.2013, neither petitioner nor his counsel was present. Be that as it may, no affidavit of even the proxy counsel, who had appeared on 02.01.2013 on behalf of the petitioner, has been filed. Thus, no ground whatsoever has been made out for condoning the long delay of 18 months in filing of the application for restoration of the petition.

AS already observed, there is delay of 155 days also in filing of the present revision petition. Since, there is delay in filing of the revision petition and thereafter, there has been delay in filing the restoration application, it clearly goes on to show that petitioner has been pursuing the present litigation in a very casual and careless manner. The petitioner has tried to shift entire blame on its previous counsel. Even after getting adverse finding from two fora below, the petitioner did not become wiser and has been pursuing this litigation in a lackluster manner. Since, no sufficient cause has been shown for restoring the revision petition, both these applications being without any merit stand dismissed with cost of Rs. 10,000/ - (Rupees Ten Thousand only).

PETITIONER is directed to deposit the cost with "Consumer Legal Aid Account" of this Commission by way of demand draft within four weeks failing which the petitioner will liable to pay an interest @ 9% p.a.

LIST on 03.07.2015 for compliance.