1.       This revision petition has been filed under Section 58 (1) (b) of the Act 2019 in challenge to the Order dated 06.12.2022 in Appeal No. 976 of 2019 of the State Commission Uttar Pradesh arising out of Order dated 04.04.2019 of the District Commission in Complaint no. 41 of 2018.

2.       Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and have perused the record including inter alia the Order dated 04.04.2019 of the District Commission, the impugned Order dated 06.12.2022 of the State Commission, and the memo. of petition.

3.       For better felicitation the impugned Order dated 06.12.2022 may be quoted which reads as follows:-

The counsel for the appellant has kept the appeal pending for the last almost 4 years. The counsel for the appellant remained absent on almost every date. The following order was passed in the present appeal on 31.10.2022. 

“31.10.2022

The counsel for the appellant remained absent on several dates in the past. Today again he is absent. The appeal is adjourned keeping in view the prayer for adjournment of the appeal by Proxy Advocate Mr. SM Bajpai on his behalf. 

The present appeal to be listed again on 6.12.2022 for hearing.”

Mr. A.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent, is present. 

Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed in non prosecution.

4.       The submission of learned counsel is that the representing counsel did not pursue the matter in right earnest and did not appear before the State Commission and the petitioner was not apprised about the correct state of affairs which has resulted in the dismissal of appeal. Submission is that the impugned Order may be set aside as the petitioner is a layman.

5.       It appears from the perusal of the record that in the District Commission the complaint was filed by the respondent but there also the petitioner despite sufficient service did not appear and was proceeded ex parte.  Later on the appeal was filed in the State Commission against the Order passed by the District Commission. The impugned Order is self-evident and self-speaking.  The absence of due diligence on the part of the petitioner and his legal representative kept the matter pending for several years and on 31.10.2022 on the request of proxy counsel the matter was deferred again but on the date fixed i.e. on 06.12.2022 again none appeared before the State Commission which felt constrained to pass the impugned Order.  This Bench does not see any element of perversity or jurisdictional error in the impugned Order.  If the petitioner or his legal representative were perpetually remiss and did not take up the matter in right earnest at any stage the whole proceedings cannot be kept pending for indefinite period of time and the institutions cannot be held at ransom.  It is not a case in which the developments of the case were not known to the petitioner. When the matter was decided in the District Commission ex parte, against petitioner the statutory appeal was filed in the State Commission.  Thereafter again matter was not pursued in right earnest and the State Commission was constrained to pass the Order it did.  Learned counsel has not been able to point out any such material irregularity or jurisdictional error which may persuade this Bench to take a different view of the matter.  So far as the plea of petitioner being a layman is concerned it is not at all tenable. The petitioner is a company having all wherewithal at its command.  In fact when the matters are filed and not pursued as they ought to be they not only add to the pendency of cases, such lack of due diligence and lackadaisical attitude is eventually at the cost of the genuine consumers who are waiting in the queue to get justice.  

6.       Petition being sans merits dismissed.  

7.       The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to all parties in the petition and to the learned counsel for the petitioner. The stenographer is requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.