JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER

1.      Learned counsel for the petitioner heard.  There is no need to serve the respondent because before the State Commission, the respondent is yet to be served. 

The appeal was dismissed for non-compliance of the order.  The said order is reproduced as under:-

“Heard Adv. Pravartak Pathak on behalf of the Appellant.  On perusal of the record it is evident that on 24/1/2012 upon hearing Adv. Pravartak Pathak for the Appellant, the appeal was admitted and this Commission had directed to issue notice after admission returnable on 10.4.2012 to the Respondent through State Commission by RPAD at the cost of the Appellant.  Thus, sufficient time of four months was granted to the Appellant to take appropriate steps for service of notice to the respondent.  However, for the reasons best known to the Appellant compliance of said order dated 24.1.2012 was not made.  Appeal thereafter appeared before this Commission on 10.4.2012.  On that date Appellant as well as Learned Advocate for the Appellant remained absent.  However, in the interest of justice appeal was adjourned to 17/7/2012 upon recording that steps have not been taken by the Appellant to comply with the earlier directions dated 24/1/2012 as regards issuance of notice after admission to the Respondent.  Even today Learned Advocate for the Appellant is seeking time to comply with the order dated 24/1/2012.  However, there are no valid reasons assigned by the Learned Advocate for the Appellant for seeking time.  Hence, the appeal stands dismissed for non-compliance of the orders passed by this Commission.  No order as to costs.”

2.      It is stated that panel advocate wrote to the petitioner-authority that he could not take steps and the lawyer never informed the authority that steps were to be taken. 

3.      We find no force in these arguments.  It is the duty of the department and its employees to post them on each and every date of hearing.  It is the duty of the litigant to go to the office of the Advocate and come to know what is the next date of hearing, what steps are to be taken.  This view finds support from various authorities.

 3.     In Jaswant Singh Vs. Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies – 2000 (3) Punj. L.R. 83, it was laid down that cause of delay was that the counsel of the appellant in the lower Court had told them that there was no need of their coming to Court and they would be informed of the result, as and when the decision comes, was held to be a story which cannot be believed.

4.      In Bhandari Dass Vs. Sushila, 1997 (2) Raj LW 845, it was held that accusing the lawyer that he did not inform the client about the progress of the case nor did he send any letter, was disbelieved while rejecting an application to condone delay.

5.      In Banshi Vs. Lakshmi Narain – 1993 (1) R.L.R. 68, it was held that reason for delay was sought to be explained on the ground that the counsel  did not inform the appellant in time, was not accepted since it was primarily the duty of the party himself to have gone to lawyer’s office and enquired about the case, especially when

the case was regarding deposit of arrears of rent.  The statute also prescribes a time bound programme regarding the deposit to be made.

6.      It is well settled that Qui facit per alium facit per se.  Negligence of a litigant’s agent is negligence of the litigant himself and is not sufficient cause for condoning delay. See M/s. Chawala & Co. Vs. Felicity Rodrigues, 1971 ACJ 92.

7.      It is thus clear that the petitioner was negligent.  They have a separate legal department where several employees work.  It was their duty to know what is the position and what steps were to be taken.

8.      However, in the interest of justice, since the opposite party is yet to be served, we restore the appeal to its original number and set aside the order passed by the State Commission and direct the petitioner to appear before the State Commission.  The State Commission shall issue the process again through all the way i.e.  

dasti, registered A.D., courier and speed post.  Dasti notice be also given. 

9.         The revision petition is accepted subject to payment of Rs.15,000/- as costs, which be deposited, with the Consumer Welfare Fund established by the Central Government under Section 12(3) read with Rule 10-A of the Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and receipt of the same be shown to the State Commission,  failing which, the revision petition shall stand dismissed and the order of the State Commission will prevail.  The petitioner is directed to appear before the State Commission on 1.4.2013.