PER JUSTICE J.M. MALIK 1. Counsel for the petitioner heard. There was a delay of 110 days in filing the first appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission did not condone the delay. The petitioner has failed to produce the application for condonation of delay, which is the most relevant document in this case. However, we have collected the facts from the order of the State Commission, which are mentioned in point 1 para no. 5, which are reproduced here as under:- “5. Point No.1:- As regards the point NO. 1 is concerned, the appellant filed his affidavit contending that, the order under challenge passed by the DF on 25.03.2013. After passing the order, he could not contract his advocate as he had undergone angiogram at Narayana Hrudhyala, Bangalore for 10 days and further the Doctor has advised him to take bed rest for two months. Immediately, after recovery from his ill-health, he contacted his advocate and requested him to prefer an appeal. The delay in filing the appeal unintentional and the same is bonafide. If the delay is condoned, no prejudice would be caused to the respondent.” 2. We have heard the counsel for the petitioner. The allegations made in the petition are vague, evasive and lead the Commission nowhere. There is no prescription of the doctor to take bed rest for two months. Angiogram is an ordinary procedure, which may take only one day or at the most seven days. He has not explained about the members of his family. The petitioner has also not mentioned the name of the Advocate. No medical certificate was produced before us. However, the State Commission further mentioned in para No. 6:- “6. Of course, the appellant has produced OP case sheet and discharge summary to show that he has undergone treatment in between 21.05.2013 to 27.05.2013 but, it does not disclose about the advise given to him to take bed rest for two months. The medical literature discloses that, if a person has undergone angiogram test, he has to take rest for few days i.e., one week. Therefore, we hold that, there was no bar for the appellant/complainant to talk to his advocate to prefer an appeal by giving instructions through somebody. Hence, we don’t see any sufficient and reasonable grounds to condone the delay. ; Hence, I.A. 1 is liable to the dismissed. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered in affirmative.” 3. Under these circumstances, the State Commission has rightly dismissed the application for condonation of delay. 4. Even on merits, the counsel for the petitioner submits that he has lost the opportunity to prosecute the borrower Mr. Naga Reddy, who had issued the cheque under section 138 of NI Act. He has not been made a party in this case. Petitioner can file the civil case against him because three years have not yet elapsed. He may make both of them parties in this case. He should compel Naga Reddy to re-issue the cheque in his favour in view of the findings of the Consumer Fora. We have taken care of the fact that the petitioner should not be doubly benefited by taking money in the sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- from the Bank and on the other hand, the petitioner while working in cahoots with Naga Reddy, charges another Rs. 6,00,000/-. 5. Consequently, the order passed by the State Commission cannot be faulted. Amount of Rs. 20,000/- is quite enough, as compensation. 6. The Revision Petition is dismissed. |
