PER JUSTICE J.M. MALIK

1.      Counsel for the petitioners is present.  Arguments heard.  There is a delay of three years in filing the First Appeal before the State Commission under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.  An application for condonation of delay was moved which was dismissed.  Aggrieved by that order, the present Revision Petition has been filed. The delay was explained in para No. 2 & 3, which are reproduced as under:-

“2.       That on receipt of the copy of the order by the counsel for the appellants/applicants did not convey the same to the applicants/appellants. The applicants/appellants came to know about the decision of the case only when they came to know that the complainants/non-applicants have filed an execution petition before the Ld. Forum below and warrants of attachment have been issued against the applicants/appellants.  The applicants immediately applied for the certified copy of the order dated 17-05-2010 in the month of March, 2013 which was made available on 21-03-2013.

3.         That thereafter the applicants engaged another lawyer and supplied the complete documents of the case file in the last week of March, 2013.  The appeal could not be filed after 31-03-2013 as the mother of the counsel engaged by the applicants/appellants left for her heavenly abode on 06-04-2013 and he remained busy to perform the last rites of his mother at his native place Rampur and came back on 30-4-2013 and got the appeal as well application drafted.”

3.      Petitioner has not filed the certified copy of the order of the District Forum.  True copy has been filed, which is partly legible and partly not legible.  Counsel for the petitioner admits that the service of free copy was effected on the counsel whose name was never mentioned. Consequently, it is assumed that service on the counsel is as good as service on the petitioner himself.

4.      Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the counsel who is discharged after the matter is decided, he is not supposed to have copy .  It is stated that he is a very good counsel and he did not want that his reputation should be spoiled.  Under these circumstances, the taking action against him, does not arise.

5.      It is a very bad practice now-a-days that allegations are made against the Advocates that, too, in their absence.  If an Advocate has committed an offence, whosoever senior he may be, action should be taken against him.  The complaint should have been made a complaint against him before the Bar Counsel of India.  Again legal notice should have been given to him.  We are not convinced by the argument advanced by the counsel for the petitioner that he must go scot free, even he had committed this much of offence.  Lastly, name and affidavit of the Advocate is conspicuously not brought on record. 

6.      The expression given by the petitioner appears to be made out of whole cloth and the same is therefore rejected.  This view finds support from the various authorities reported in Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), R.B. Ramlingam v. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) CLT 188 (SC),  Ram Lal and Others v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, Bikram Dass Vs. Financial Commissioner and others, AIR, 1977 SC 1221 & Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. [2012] 1 SCR 1045.

7.      The case is hopelessly barred by time, hence the case is dismissed. 

8.      Counsel for the petitioner submits that one similar matter has been decided in his favour. This matter is being dismissed due to limitation.  It is difficult to fathom how does it can make any difference.  The Revision Petition is dismissed as time barred.  Petitioner has been wasting our time and advancing frivolous arguments knowing well that his case is barred by time. We therefore, impose costs of Rs. 10,000/- upon the petitioner, which will be deposited with the Consumer Welfare Fund established by the Central Government  under  Section 12 (3)   read   with    Rule 10(a)  of the  Consumer  Protection  Act, 1986,  of   the Central     Excise Act,   1944,   by way  of demand draft in favour  of  P.A.O., Ministry of Consumer Affairs,  payable at New Delhi.    To simplify the matter, petitioner can deposit the amount with the Registrar of this Commission, who will further transmit the demand draft to the concerned Ministry. within 90 days from today.