JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL) 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner present. He has invited our attention towards the impugned order dated 9.10.2012. The impugned order runs as follows: “9.10.2012 Present : None for the appellant Mr. M. L. Sharma, counsel for the respondent No.1. Mr. Manoj Chauhan, counsel for the respondent No. 2. Nobody appears for the appellant. Hence, appeal is dismissed in default.” 2. The stamp appearing on the certified copy clearly goes to show that the free copy was sent to the petitioner by registered post on 30.10.2012. Consequently, there is a delay of 409 days in filing this revision petition. The petitioner has moved an application for condonation of delay. The delay has been explained in para 3 of the application for condonation of delay, which is reproduced as under: -3- “3. The impugned order was passed on 9.10.2012. Despite the best efforts of the Petitioner it was not represented before the lower forums. The Petitioner was not even informed that an adverse order was passed against it. The petitioner received the impugned order on 19.9.2013 when the petitioner appointed a new counsel. The new counsel appointed by the petitioner dispatched the Order through courier to Delhi. The petitioner was thereafter advised to file an application for restoration of the Order before the State Commission. That thereafter the Petitioner on 10.1.2014 approached the State Commission with an application for Restoration under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the rules and regulations made thereunder. However, on 10.01.2013 when the petitioner’s lawyer approached the registry of the State Commission for filing the restoration application, the registry refused to entertain the -4- same and instead instructed the Petitioner to approach this Hon’ble Commission.” 3. The excuse given by the petitioner is lame. Learned counsel for the petitioner also invited our attention towards the order passed by the District Forum. Before the District Forum, Tata Sky Satellite Television Service was proceeded against ex parte. It is stated that the entire Kangra Board Association had made a point not to appear in favour of Tata Sky Satellite Television Service. It is also pointed out that as a matter of fact, Kangra District Bar Association had filed a case against petitioner No. 1. 4. All these arguments have left no impression upon us. There was no bar for the petitioner to appear before the District Forum and State Commission. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not explain that when it had appointed a lawyer but he did not appear and why the negligence cannot be attributed to his part. He is unable to tell the name of the advocate. He has also failed to state whether they have lodged any complaint against the advocate before the Bar Council of India. There is nothing on record which may go to show -5- that any legal notice was given to that advocate. This story just does not stack up. 5. The company could have appointed their own legal representative and if it was not possible, they should have come to the Commission with the request that advocates were not available and the case should be adjourned. It is also not understood as to how another advocate agreed to take their brief. 6. It is also well known that the State Commission has no power to review its own order as per the decision in Rajeev Hitendra Pathak and Ors. Vs. Achyut Kashinath Karekar and Anr. (2011) 9) SCC 541, which was announced as back as in the year 2011. There is no such provision in the Act. 7. There is a huge delay of 409 days. It is the bounden duty of the litigant to go to the office of his advocate and get himself posted with day-to-day hearing. The case is hopelessly barred by time. 8. This view is fortified by the following authorities. (i) Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), -6- (ii) R.B. Ramlingam v. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) CLT 188 (SC)= I (2009) SLT 701=2009 (2) Scale 108 (iii) Ram Lal and Others v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, (iv) Bikram Dass Vs. Financial Commissioner and others AIR 1977 Supreme Court 1221. (v) Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. 2012 STPL(Web) 132 (SC). 8. The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed. | 
