This Revision Petition by a private limited company, namely, M/s Sree Meenakshi Textiles Pvt. Ltd., claiming a compensation of almost Rs.10.00 Lakhs from the Respondent/Insurance Company, is directed against order dated 28.03.2014, whereby their Appeal has been dismissed for non-prosecution, as, despite three opportunities, neither the defects pointed out by the office of the State Commission had been removed nor anyone had put in appearance on its behalf either before the Secretary of the State Commission or before the Bench.  The Appeal before the State Commission had been preferred by the Petitioner against the orders of the District Forum, whereby its complaint, seeking a direction to the Opposite Parties to pay, jointly or severally, a compensation of ₹9,44,980/-, had been dismissed on the ground that the subject transaction was for commercial purpose and, therefore, the Petitioner was not a “consumer” within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The claim of the Petitioner was for the loss suffered by him, on account of destruction of a consignment of combed cotton yarn purchased by him from Respondent No.3, due to fire, during the course of transit from Coimbatore (Tamilnadu) to Bargarh (Odisha).

The impugned order is challenged, inter alia, on the grounds that the State Commission was biased; it is contrary to the settled principles of law; and it had failed to understand that the Petitioner had a very good and sustainable case against the Insurance Company.  The Revision Petition, drafted by an Advocate, is signed and verified by the Managing Director of the Petitioner Company.

To say the least, the derogatory language used by the Petitioner in the grounds of challenge to the impugned order passed by the lower Fora is unacceptable and needs to be condemned to protect and preserve the purity and majesty of law.  Instead of challenging the order on merits and showing a justifiable cause for its evident failure to prosecute the Appeal, the Petitioner has chosen to lay the entire blame for the dismissal at the door of the State Commission.  Obviously, after instituting the case the Petitioner did not bother to monitor the proceedings in the case.  The State Commission had no alternative but to dismiss the Appeal.  Under the given circumstances, it cannot be held that the State Commission committed any jurisdictional error in passing the impugned order.  Having regard to the conduct of the Petitioner, I do not find it to be a fit case for exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed, with a direction to the petitioner to deposit costs of ₹25,000/- in the Consumer Legal Aid Account-NCDRC within two weeks, for the act of indiscretion, not expected from a litigant.