JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)

          The petitioner/complainant purchased a car on hire-purchase basis.  The car was got financed from ICICI Bank.  Alleging that the aforesaid care was seized by the officers of ICICI Bank in default of payment of only one instalment, he preferred a complaint before the concerned District Forum, seeking return of the car, or in the alternative payment of a sum of Rs. 5,46,000/-.  He also sought compensation amounting to Rs. 2,60,000/-, besides cost of litigation etc.  However, neither the complainant nor his counsel appeared before the District Forum for six consecutive dates of hearing, and as a result the complaint was dismissed in default on 20.04.2011.

2.      Being aggrieved from dismissal of his complaint in default, the petitioner/complainant preferred an appeal before the State Commission.  However, even the said appeal was not filed within the prescribed period of limitation and there was a delay of about 2 years and 10 months in filing the said appeal.  The State Commission was not satisfied with the explanation given by the complainant/petitioner for the abnormal delay in filing the appeal and accordingly dismissed the application seeking condonation of delay.  Consequently, the appeal was also dismissed as barred by limitation.  During the course of arguments, we asked the learned counsel for the petitioner as to why neither the complainant nor his counsel appeared before the District Forum for as many as six consecutive hearings.  The learned counsel submits that the complainant had engaged a counsel namely Mr. Kaushal Pandey, who had assured him that he need not appear before the District Forum and then he handed over the brief to another counsel namely Mr. Kamlesh Pare.  He further submits that neither Mr. Kaushal Pandey nor Mr. Kamlesh Pare informed the complainant about the date of hearing before the District Forum and also did not bother to appear before the said forum.

3.      In our opinion, a person who files a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of a service provider ought to be vigilant in pursuing his remedy, instead of leaving everything to the counsel engaged by him.  Therefore, the complainant ought to have remained in regular touch with Mr. Kaushal Pandey, Advocate and ought to have atleast inquired about every date of hearing fixed before the District Forum.  Had that been done, he could have kept a track of the complaint, which he had filed before the District Forum.  We asked the learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether any complaint was made by the complainant either against Mr. Kaushal Pandey or against Mr. Kamlesh Pare, Advocates.  The learned counsel submits that no such complaint was ever made.  Had any such assurance as is claimed by the complainant been given to him by Mr. Kaushal Pandey, Advocate, he would certainly have reported the matter to the Bar Council when he came to know that the complaint had been dismissed in default on account of six consecutive defaults in appearing before the District Forum.  Therefore, the plea taken by the complainant in this regard does not appear to be convincing.

4.      Coming to the delay in filing the appeal before the State Commission, we asked the learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether any copy of the order passed by the District Forum on 20.04.2011 was received by the complainant from the Registry of the District Forum or not.  The learned counsel submits that no copy of the order was ever received by the complainant.  However, there is no assertion in the revision petition that no copy of the order of the District Forum, dated 20.04.2011 was received by the complainant from the Registry of the District Forum.

5.      The case of the complainant/petitioner is that on death of Mr. Kamlesh Pare, Advocate, he contacted some advocates in the District Forum and at that time he came to know through some advocate, that his complaint was dismissed in default on 20.04.2011.  Thereafter, he obtained a certified copy of the order on 10.02.2014 and filed an appeal on 20.03.2014.  When we asked the learned counsel for the complainant to give us the name of the advocate, who informed the complainant about dismissal of its complaint in default on 20.04.2011, no such name could be given to us.  Had that been done, we could have called for the record of the District Forum to verify whether any inspection of the file was undertaken by the said counsel or not.  In these circumstances, we are not inclined to accept the contention that an unnamed advocate had inspected the record of the District Forum and informed the complainant about dismissal of his complaint in default.  We also find that even after receiving certified copy of the order on 10.02.2014, the appeal was not immediately filed.  It came to be filed after one month and 12 days.

6.       For the reasons stated in above, we find no ground to interfere with the view taken by the State Commission.  The revision petition is dismissed.