1        This revision is directed against the order of the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata (in short, “the State Commission”) dated 13.1.2016 whereby the State Commission declined to condone the delay of 109 days in filing of the appeal and as a consequence dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation.

2.       Briefly stated, facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are that on 6^th March, 2014 respondent filed the consumer complaint CC/119/2014 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, North 24 Pargana, Barasat with the allegation of deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner/opposite party in relation to a holiday trip to Srinagar, Gulmarg, Pahalgam and back to Srinagar. The gist of the complaint is that although the complainant was assured and given confirm hotel stay vouchers, when he reached Srinagar on 20^th May, 2012 he was told by the hotel staff that there was no booking in his name done by the opposite party. After a lot of convincing the owner of the hotel Dal Rim accommodated the complainant and his family in a sub-standard accommodation. Similar was the experience of the complainant when he and his family reached at the next destination i.e. hotel New Zam Zam, Gulmarg on 23^rd May, 2012. On being told that there was no booking for him and his family available in the hotel the complainant contacted the customer care of the opposite party but in vain. It is the case of the complainant that the calls were disconnected at the end of customer care. Ultimately the complainant contacted Sri Kishore Kumar, Executive of the opposite party who had customized his travel plan and booked the hotels. Shri Kishore Kumar told him that he was not in office and he has forwarded his case to the customer care and the complainant would be shortly contacted by them but no call came from the customer care. Ultimately the complainant and his family had to search for some other accommodation and they got a room in hotel Zahgir Continental for one night on the rent of Rs.3,500/-. On the next date the complainant had a booking at Skylight Guest House, Pahalgam. To avoid any convenience the complainant called at the mobile number of the said hotel and the Manager told him that there was no booking done for the complainant by the opposite party. Therefore, the complainant cancelled his programme for Pahalgam and requested the Manager of hotel Jahgir Continental to extend the stay for another day but the Manager refused to do so as the room was already booked for the day. As a result the complainant and his family had to spend a night on the roadside. Claiming this to be deficiency in service the complainant raised the consumer dispute.

3.       Although at the initial stage opposite party put in appearance in response to the notice of the complaint but the opposite party failed to file the written statement or appear in the later proceedings. Opposite party was, therefore, proceeded ex-parte and on the basis of the ex-parte evidence the complaint was allowed and following directions were issued: -

          “That the case be and same is allowed ex-parte against the opposite party No.1, and opposite party No.2 with costs of Rs.10,000/- only payable by the both opposite parties to the complainant, within one month from the date of this order.

          That the opposite party No.1 & 2 are jointly and severally directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,500/- only to the complainant, as payment at ‘Hotel Zahgir Continental’, at Gulmarg, within one month from the date of this order.”

4.       Being aggrieved of the order of the District Forum the petitioner/opposite party preferred an appeal with the State Commission, West Bengal. The appeal, however, was filed after the expiry of 30 days period of limitation with a delay of 109 days. Thus, the application for condonation of delay was also moved. The State Commission was not convinced with the explanation for delay and the State Commission accordingly dismissed the application for condonation of delay as also the appeal as barred by limitation. This has led to filing of the revision petition.

5.       Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that there was no intention on the part of the petitioner to absent from the proceedings before the District Forum. Actually the written statement was prepared, signed and sent to the counsel representing the petitioner but the counsel failed to file the written statement and he even failed to put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner and this led to the matter being decided ex-parte. It is further contended that even the delay of 109 days in filing of the appeal was unintentional because the petitioner was not aware of the order of the District Forum. Free copy of the impugned order was obtained by the counsel but he sent that copy much later in February, 2015.

6.       We are not convinced with the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. From the sequence of events discussed above, it is clear that consumer complaint was filed in March, 2014. Ex-parte order was passed in favour of the complainant on 30^th October, 2014. Since then almost two years have gone by but the complainant has not received the fruits of the order of the District Forum. From the record it is clear that opposite party was grossly negligent in the conduct of the defence before the District Forum. Despite of the fact that an ex-parte judgment was passed against the opposite party, the opposite party did not wake up and instead of taking immediate recourse by filing the appeal, the opposite party waited for more than 100 days after the expiry of limitation to file the appeal. Only explanation given for absence before the District Forum and delay in filing of the appeal is that the advocate, who was assigned to defend the complaint on behalf of the opposite party, was negligent.

7.       It is our experience that now-a-days in the matters pertaining to condonation of delay and setting aside of ex-parte orders it has become a trend to put blame on the previous counsel. Therefore, given the history of this case, we do not find the explanation convincing. If at all the allegations in the revision petition are true that the previous counsel was negligent, he obviously has committed a deficiency in service for which the petitioner can always initiate proceedings against the said counsel, who allegedly committed deficiency in service. Thus, under the circumstances taking note of the fact that more than two years have elapsed after the filing of the consumer complaint, we do not find it a fit case to interfere with the impugned order of the State Commission, which cannot be faulted, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

8.       Revision petition is accordingly dismissed.