Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member
This delay condonation application filed in Revision Petition which the revisionist elected to proceed against the order dated 30/05/2012 passed in consumer complaint No.49/2012 (Mr.Bhupendra Mansukhalal Shah & Anr. V/s. The Aviva Life Insurance Co. India Ltd. & Anr.) by District Forum, South Mumbai. The impugned order relates to proceeding ex-parte against the revisionist when they remained absent on that particular date. Revisionist alleged there is delay of 166 days and made an application to condone the delay in filing Revision Petition.
2. Heard Mr.Kiran Laturkar, Advocate for the applicants/petitioners and Ms.Charulata Khanna, Advocate for non-applicants/respondents on delay condonation application.
3. As per the statement of facts revealed from the application read with Revision Petition, it could be seen that revisionist blamed their Advocate for ignorance of development and progress of the consumer complaint. We find that there is also responsibility of the revisionists to keep track of the proceedings even if the lawyer is engaged. Apart from that, no fault or irregularity could be found with the impugned order so as to entertain the Revision Petition. Finding the party absent, District Forum rightly directed to proceed ex-parte against revisionists in view of Rule 4(7) of Maharashtra Consumer Protection Rules, 2000.
4. Coming to the other aspect, considering the delay condonation application, it appears that on 20/11/2012, revisionists moved an application before the District Forum to set aside the ex-parte order dated 30/05/2012. Said application was not entertained and stood dismissed rightly observing that the District Forum has no power to review its own order and thereafter, this Revision Petition came to be filed. We are afraid that filing the application to set aside the ex-parte order cannot be said as a bonafide exercise on the part of the revisionists because ignorance of law cannot be pleaded as defence particularly when the revisionists are assisted by a lawyer and also by personnel from its Legal Department. No other reason is mentioned to get condoned the delay. Apart from that in the light of the facts, supra, it would be futile to entertain this application invoking a revisional jurisdiction.
5. Considering all these aspects, application for condonation of delay stands dismissed. In the result, Revision Petition is not entertained. No order as to costs.
Pronounced
Dated 12th June 2013.
