JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)

          This revision petition is directed against the order of the State Commission dated 03.10.2012, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner company against the order of the District Forum dated 02.09.2008 was dismissed by the State Commission for want of prosecution. It would be pertinent to note here that the respondent / complainant was present when the complaint came to be dismissed for want of prosecution.  Since there is delay of more than 4 years and 2 months in filing the revision petition, an application being IA/4690/2017 has been filed, seeking condonation of delay.

2.      The application seeking condonation of delay, to the extent it is relevant reads as under:

          “3.     That it is respectfully submitted that for the purpose of filing the appeal, petitioner availed the services of Neeraj Sahani, Advocate at Chandigarh.  It is submitted that petitioner-company made the payment of professional fees of the said Advocate and was in bonafide belief that said Advocate shall be taking care of the appeal.  It is submitted that petitioner-company was made to believe by the said advocate that he shall take care of the appeal and personal appearance of the Authorized representative is not at all necessary and that he shall argue the appeal as and when the same shall mature for hearing.  Accordingly, petitioner remained under an impression that said advocate is handling the appeal.  However, for the reasons best known to said advocate, he stopped appearing in the matter before the Hon’ble State Commission.  Finding no alternative and owing to non-appearance from the side of appellant, the Hon’ble State Commission dismissed the appeal in default vide order dated 03.10.2012.

          4.      That though in the order dated 03.10.2012, it is recorded that order be sent to both the parties but no copy of the order dated 03.10.2012 was received by the petitioner.  It is pertinent to mention here that petitioner came to know about the dismissal of appeal only when it received the notice of application under Section 27 of the Act form the Ld. District Forum on 16.02.2017.  The petitioner is filing the present revision petition immediately on coming to know about the passing of impugned order”.

3.      As noted earlier, no one was present for the petitioner / appellant when the appeal filed by the petitioner company was dismissed for want of prosecution, though, the case of the petitioner is that it had engaged the services of Mr. Neeraj Sahani, Advocate for prosecuting the said appeal.  According to the petitioner, for the reasons best known to him, Mr. Neeraj Sahani has stopped appearing for the petitioner company and that was the reason the appeal was dismissed in default.  However, no affidavit or even a letter of Mr. Neeraj Sahani has not been filed to prove that the intimation of dismissal of the appeal was not given by him to the petitioner company.  This is not the case of the petitioner that any legal notice was sent by it to Mr. Neeraj Sahani, Advocate alleging negligence on his part in prosecuting the appeal.  There is no averment of a complaint having been made to the concerned Bar Council against Mr. Neeraj Sahani for having stopped appearing on behalf of the petitioner company.  In these circumstances, I find it extremely difficult to believe that the petitioner company was not aware of the dismissal of its appeal vide order dated 03.10.2012.

5.      The petitioner is a large company and therefore, was expected to nominate an official of the company for coordinating with the Advocate and keeping track of the appeal filed by the petitioner company.  The nominated official of the company was expected to remain in touch with the Advocate and keep himself posted with the progress of the appeal filed by the petitioner.  The application is conspicuously silent as to why no official of the company was coordinating with the Advocate Mr. Neeraj Sahani and was not keeping track of the appeal filed before the State Commission.  Had the official of the company remained in touch with the Advocate, he would have come to know that the Advocate had stopped appearing on behalf of the petitioner company and in that case, the petitioner could have taken steps to engage another Advocate and the Advocate could have inspected the record and intimated the dismissal of the appeal on 03.10.2012 to the petitioner company.

6.      For the reasons stated hereinabove, I am satisfied that the abnormal delay of more than 4 years and 2 months in filing this revision petition does not stand satisfactorily explained.  One of the objectives behind enactment of the Consumer Protection Act is to provide expeditious relief to a consumer aggrieved on account of defect or deficiency in the services hired or availed by him.  It is towards achieving this objective that the Act enjoins upon the Consumer Fora to make endeavours to decide the consumer complaint within a period of three months.  The said objective is bound to be defeated if the revision petitions are entertained after a delay of more than 4 years and 2 months, without there being a satisfactory explanation for the said delay.  This is more so, where the petitioner has lost before both the Consumer Fora below.

7.      For the reasons stated hereinabove, the application, seeking condonation of delay is dismissed.  Consequently the revision petition is dismissed as barred by limitation.