1.      There is delay of 221 days in filing this revision petition.  Mr. Sathar, the complainant,  represented  by  his power of attorney Mr. Sadiq Basha has filed the instant revision petition.  Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed an application for condonation of delay.  The impugned order is dated 20.102010.  The petitioner has explained the delay in paras 2, 3 and 4, which are reproduced hereunder:-

“2. The advocate of the petitioner did not inform the petitioner about the outcome of the appeal filed by the Respondent Banks before the State Commission.  The order copy of the State Commission was received by post at the address of the Petitioner on 20.6.2011.

3. It is submitted that the petitioner had met with a road accident on 11.6.2010.  As a result of the accident, the petitioner had gone into coma and remained in the hospital up till 12.7.2010.  Thereafter, the petitioner developed a clot in the brain and as a result of which he could not understand or move about and was bed ridden.  The petitioner was advised rest by the doctor and he was under continuous treatment at Pondicherry Institute of Medical Sciences.  It is only towards January 2012 that the petitioner has been able to understand as to what is happening around him.  It is submitted that due to the medical treatment of the petitioner the petitioner could not understand the import of the order passed by the State Commission.  Copies of medical prescriptions are annexed herewith as Annexure P.

4. Only in February 2012, the petitioner was able to contact his lawyer who explained him the order of the State Commission.  As the petitioner does not have any contacts in Delhi, it took some time through his friends to locate a lawyer in Delhi and file the present revision petition.  The delay in filing the revision petition is unintentional and beyond the control of the petitioner.”

3.      Learned counsel for the petitioner has also invited our attention towards the medical certificate which goes to show that Mr. Sadiq Basha, power of attorney, was suffering from Hemorrhage from 11.6.2010 to 12.7.2010.  Again he could not fully recover and remained under the treatment. 

4.      We find force in the argument in a measure but it is difficult to fathom as to what had happened to Sathar, the complainant himself.  Learned counsel for the petitioner could not explain about that position.  He has right and he could file the revision petition himself in time.  However, the petitioner’s counsel is unable to inform the court as to what happened to Sathar, who is the real complainant in this case.  Negligence, inaction and passivity is writ large on the part of the complainant.  No explanation is forthcoming.  The whole revision petition and application for condonation of delay are conspicuous by the silence about the complainant.  The Consumer Protection Act is a special Act, which prescribes summary procedure and its own period of limitation.    It is very convenient to condemn the advocates that, too, in their absence.  The affidavit of Advocate did not see the light of the day.  Again, ignorance of law is no excuse.  The case is hopelessly barred by time.  The following authorities neatly dovetail with this view.

5.       In Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), it has been held that “It is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if this Court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the Consumer Foras”. 

6.       In R.B. Ramlingam v. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) CLT 188 (SC)= I (2009) SLT 701=2009 (2) Scale 108, it has been observed that “We hold that in each and every case the Court has to examine whether delay in filing the Special Appeal Leave Petitions stands properly explained. This is the basic test which needs to be applied. The true guide is whether the petitioner has acted with reasonable diligence in the prosecution of his appeal/petition”.

7.       In Ram Lal and Others v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, it has been observed that “It is, however, necessary to emphasize that even after sufficient cause has been shown a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a matter of right.  The proof of a sufficient cause is a discretionary jurisdiction vested in the Court by Section 5.  If ‘sufficient cause’ is not proved nothing further has to be done; the application for condonation has to be dismissed on that ground alone.  If ‘sufficient cause’ is shown then the Court has to enquire whether in its discretion it should condone the delay. This aspect of the matter naturally introduces the consideration of all relevant facts and it is at this stage that diligence of the party or its bonafides may fall for consideration; but the scope of the inquiry while exercising the discretionary power after sufficient cause is shown would naturally be limited only to such facts as the Court may regard as relevant.”.

8.       In  Balwant Singh  Vs.  Jagdish Singh & Ors.,   (Civil Appeal no. 1166 of 2006),  decided  by the Apex Court on 08.07.2010 it was held:                    

                              “The party should show that besides acting bona                         fide, it had taken all possible steps within its power and control and had approached the Court without any unnecessary delay. The test is whether or not a cause is sufficient to see whether it could have been avoided by the party by the exercise of due care and attention.

[Advanced Law Lexicon, P. Ramanatha Aiyar, 3rd Edition, 2005]”

9.       The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case Bikram Dass Vs. Financial Commissioner and others AIR 1977 Supreme Court 1221 has held that:

                              “Section 5 of the Limitation Act is a hard task-master and judicial interpretation has encased it within a narrow compass.  A large measure of case-law has grown around S.5, its highlights being that one ought not easily to take away a right which has accrued to a party by lapse of time and that therefore a litigant who is not vigilant about his rights must explain every days delay.”

Due to inordinate delay, we hereby decide that the case is hopelessly barred by time.

10.    Now we advert to the merits of the case, Sathar, the complainant was having saving bank account with the Canara Bank Ltd. opposite party.  The complainant deposited cheque in the sum of Rs. 2 lakh dated 8.3.2004 issued by one Mohd. Jabbar for collection.  The complainant did not get the amount of the said cheque.  He made a complaint to the bank and through the complaint, it transpired that same was dishonored for want of sufficient funds.

11.    A complaint was filed before the District Consumer Forum.  The District Consumer Forum allowed the complaint and granted a sum of Rs. 2 lakh in favour of the complainant and against the opposite party.  Thereafter, an appeal was filed before the State Commission.  The State Commission placed a reliance upon an order passed by this Commission in A.P. Bopanna vs. Kodagu District Cooperative Central Bank reported in 2009 CTJ 297 (CP) (NCDRC) and reduced the cost to Rs.10,000/-.  It was held that the bank cannot be made liable to pay the entire cheque amount.  It is to be burdened with costs/compensation for the deficiency for not informing the consumer that its cheque had been dishonored.

12.    Aggrieved by the said order, the instant revision petition has been preferred.

13.    We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.  Her grievance is that the bank has not produced any document to show that cheque was dishonored.   She submits that the bank at least should have produced those documents in support of its case.  The State Commission also mentioned that it is the duty of the bank to inform the account holder, who deposited the said cheque as to what had happened to the cheque. 

14. We are unable to locate substance in these arguments.  The penalty of Rs.10,000/- was imposed because of that deficiency.  It is for the petitioner to inquire from Mr. Mohd. Jabbar whether he had sufficient funds in his account.  No evidence in this context has been produced.  In case, Rs. 2 lakh is awarded to the petitioner, he will be doubly benefited.  He will get Rs. 2 lakh from Mohd. Jabbar as well as from the Bank.  By no stretch of imagination the bank can be relegated to the position of payer/debtor.  We find no force in this revision petition and the same is dismissed.