JUSTICE V.K. JAIN (ORAL)
This revision petition is directed against the order of the State Commission dated 15.10.2014/16.10.2014 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of the District Forum dated 20.3.2007 was dismissed for want of prosecution as no one appeared for the petitioner on the said dates. Since there is delay of more than 1 year and 7 months in filing the revision petition, an application (IA/419/2017) seeking condonation of the said delay has also been filed. The application seeking condonation of delay to the extent it is relevant, reads as under:- “(a) It is respectfully submitted on behalf of the applicant that the impugned judgment was passed by the Hon’ble State Commission on 15.10.2014/16.10.2014 and the appeal filed by the appellant has been dismissed for non-prosecution. (b) That the petitioner has appointed advocate of a law firm namely Kocher & Co. to pursue the said case but the said advocate has not informed about the dismissal of the appeal within time. (c) That thereafter on making enquiry about the matter in the month of March 2016 came to know that the appeal has already been dismissed for non-prosecution in the year 2014 which was not informed to the Board by his counsel. (d) That as a result the petitioner has removed the said law firm frim the panel list of the Board and appointed other counsel to see the matter. The board has appointed new advocate and given him fresh vakalatnama who got the impugned order on 11.3.2016 and made available to the petitioner. (e) That thereafter the managing director has given approval for the appointment of MD. Shahid Anwar Advocate to pursue the case before the National Commission. (f) That vide letter dated 20.4.2016 bearing matter no.2538 all paper pertaining to present case has been sent to MD. Shahid Anwar Advocate. (g) On 26.6.2016 revision petition drafted by Md. Shahid Anwar Advocate has been obtained by email which was received by legal section.” 2. It would thus be seen that entire blame for the abnormal delay of more than 1 year and 7 months is sought to be put on a law firm namely M/s Kocher & Co. without even naming the official of the Board responsible for tracking the appeal filed before the State Commission and coordinating with the law firm. Since a law firm acts on instructions of its clients, there must be someone in the petitioner Board entrusted with the task of coordinating with the law firm and keeping a track of the cases entrusted to the said firm. The officer/official entrusted with the aforesaid task was expected to remain in touch with the law firm, to find out the progress of the appeal filed before the State Commission, and ensure that there was no default on the part of the law firm in prosecuting the said appeal. Had that been done, it would have been possible for the petitioner Board to know about the dismissal of the appeal on account of default of the law firm, as soon as the date on which the impugned orders came to be made, was passed. Obviously, someone in the petitioner Board responsible for tracking the appeal filed before the State Commission, is sought to be shielded by shifting the entire blame to the law firm. Moreover, there is no averment in the application that any complaint to the concerned Bar Council has been made against the aforesaid law firm for the alleged negligence on its part in prosecuting the appeal filed before the State Commission. 3. One of the purposes behind enactment of the Consumer Protection Act is to provide an expeditious relief to a consumer aggrieved on account of defect or deficiency in the goods purchased or the services hired or availed by him. It is towards achieving this objective that the Act enjoins upon a consumer forum to make efforts to decide a consumer complaint within a period of 3 months. The legislative object is bound to be defeated if the revision petitions filed before the Apex Consumer Forum are entertained after such huge delay without there being a satisfactory explanation for the said delay. 4. For the reasons stated hereinabove, I am satisfied that the delay in filing this revision petition does not stand satisfactorily explained. The application seeking condonation of delay is, therefore, dismissed. Consequently, the revision petition is also dismissed as barred by limitation. | 
