Vijay H Jaiswal vs Anuroop Auto Pvt Ltd

THIS Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), has been filed by the Complainant, against order dated 09.10.2013 passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Mumbai (for short "the State Commission") in Appeal No. A/11/298. By the impugned order, the State Commission, while holding that the District Forum had arrived at a right conclusion that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent/Opposite Party, has dismissed the Appeal, preferred by the Petitioner.

IT is pointed out by the office that this Revision Petition is barred by limitation as there is a delay 135 days in filing the same. Application praying for condonation of the said delay has been filed alongwith the Revision Petition. In paragraph no. 2 of the said application, the explanation furnished is as under: "2. That the certified copy of the order dt. 09.10.2013 passed in Appeal No. A/11/298 was issued on 17.10.2013 which was obtained by the counsel of the petitioner/revisionist on 19.10.2013 and the petitioner/revisionist was not having any idea about the same as the petitioner/revisionist was never informed regarding the dismissal of his appeal before the State Consumer Forum. The petitioner/revisionist kept on asking his counsel at Mumbai about the case time and again but he never got any correct information. Somehow, during the Holi holidays on 17.03.2014 the petitioner/revisionist visited his counsel at Mumbai and again asked about the matter then he was informed that his matter was dismissed by the State Consumer Forum, Mumbai. The petitioner/revisionist was shocked to know after the dismissal of his matter which he only came to know on 17.03.2014 asked his counsel at Mumbai to get him the certified copy of the order dt. 09.10.2013. The counsel at Mumbai said that his clerk is not available being Holi so as soon as his clerk comes after holidays he will get the certified copy of the order of the State Consumer Forum. That finally, on 19.03.2014, the certified copy of the order of the State Consumer Forum was handed over to the petitioner/revisionist by his counsel at Mumbai. The petitioner/revisionist asked about the complete paper book but it was not handed over to the petitioner/revisionist at that time. The petitioner/revisionist kept on asking for the complete set of the paper book so that he can contact some other lawyer for further recourse. That finally, the paper book was handed over to the petitioner/revisionist in the first week of April, 2014 by the local counsel at Mumbai. The petitioner/revisionist was so perturbed that he was trying to contact other advocates at Mumbai for legal advice and then some advocate told him that he will have to challenge this order of the State Consumer Forum before the National Consumer Forum at New Delhi. This all took nearly 2 -3 weeks to the petitioner/revisionist on getting proper legal advice. Somehow in the second week of May, 2014 the petitioner/revisionist contacted over the telephone to the present counsel who asked him to send the complete paper book along with the certified copy so that the revision petition can be prepared and filed before this Hon''ble Forum."

WE have heard learned counsel for the Petitioner on the question of delay. To say the least, the explanation furnished is wholly unsatisfactory. The contention of the Petitioner that he was not aware of the impugned order passed by the State Commission on 09.10.2013, as his Counsel had not informed him about the same, does not inspire confidence. Admittedly, Counsel for the Petitioner had received the certified copy of the impugned order on 19.10.2013 and in the absence of any plausible explanation, we are unable to fathom any reason as to why the Counsel would not have informed the Petitioner about the same and sent the copy to him. Even if it is assumed that the Petitioner had actually not received any intimation about the dismissal of his Appeal from his Counsel, yet he took four months in ascertaining the status of the Appeal pending before the State Commission. The explanation furnished by the Petitioner, attributing the entire blame on his Counsel, without a shred of material in support thereof, by itself, depicts the casual and indifferent approach of the Petitioner. We are not at all convinced with the explanation furnished by the Petitioner and are of the view that he has been thoroughly negligent in prosecuting his cause. Even on merits, we find that both the Forums below have recorded concurrent finding of fact to the effect that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent in charging parking charges. Nothing was brought on record to show as to why the Petitioner did not bother to collect his vehicle for over two years after its repairs. It is evident that it is a luxury litigation to somehow keep the Respondent engaged in litigation for other undisclosed purpose.

FOR all these reasons, we are not inclined to condone an inordinate delay of 135 days in filing of the present Revision Petition. Consequently, the Revision Petition is dismissed in limine.