JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER 1. There is a delay of 309 days in filing this revision petition. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his counsel has lost track of the file and free copy was not furnished to him or to the petitioner and this has caused delay. He has moved an application for condonation of delay. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has explained the delay in paras 3, 4 and 5, which are reproduced as under:- “3.That after this the party was under the thought that the counsel for them will tell them abot the orders, but on again and again asking from the counsel he said that till date no order is passed by the Hon’ble Commission, after great persuation they came to know on 10.02.2012 that the orders have been passed on 22.3.2011 by the Hon’ble Commission, that the complaint of the complainant had been dismissed and the orders of the Ld. District Forum have been set aside by the Hon’ble State Commission, so after getting the knowledge the complainant straight away applied for the certified copy of the orders and asked counsel to give the complete file to him but the counsel said that he had lost the entire file during shifting of his office from one place to another and does not have even a single page of the file with him. 4. That after hearing this complainant arranged to get the entire copy of the file from the Commission and also inspected the file in the Hon’ble State Commission just to check that when the order was dispatched by the Hon’ble Commission and why it was not served on the complainant, and he was shocked to see that there was nothing on record which can prove that the order dated 22.03.2011 was served on the complainant. That after getting all the sets complete have arranged for lawyer to file the present revision petition before the Hon’ble Commission. 5. That the order challenged in this present revision petition is of 22.03.2011, technically there is a delay of almost one year but the circumstances and reasons discussed above show the inability of the revisionist for not filing the present revision petition on time. It is also pertinent to mention here that reasons stated in the present application show that the conditions and circumstances were not so to file the present revision petition and was beyond the reach of the revisionist.” 4. This application itself goes to reveals that this application is vague evasive and leads the Commission nowhere. It does not state as to when the final arguments were heard and who were the advocates in the matter. The affidavit of that learned Advocate did not see the light of the day. The arguments and the averments made in the application vary from each other. Here a new story is created that during shifting of his office, the file was lost. It is not clear on which date the office was changed and the learned Advocate went from which to which office. Now, it has become a fashion with the litigants to blame the advocate that too in his absence. This is nothing but a ruse to make sure that the application for condonation of delay is accepted. In case the advocate had lost the file, it takes only one day in preparing the fresh file. Anybody can inspect the file and make notes within a day or two. The Advocates are always at liberty to get the certified copy within 10-12 days and urgent copies further quickly. 5. Now, we advert to the impugned order. It clearly goes to show that the order was announced in the open Court. Learned counsel for both the parties were present, namely, Shri G. C. Babbar, Advocate for the Appellants and Shri Amit Sharma, Advocate for the respondent. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he did not receive the free copy. We have perused the certified copy which reveals that copies were furnished to the counsel for the parties on 20.4.2011. The arguments were heard on 30.3.2011. The day to day delay has not been explained. Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is a special Act and prescribes summary procedure. There is a huge delay on the part of the petitioner which cannot be condoned. The case is hopelessly barred by time. 7. In Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), it has been held that “It is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if this Court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the Consumer Foras”. 8. Similar view was also laid down in Balwant Singh Vs. Jagdish Singh & Ors., (Civil Appeal no. 1166 of 2006), decided by the Apex Court on 08.07.2010; Bikram Dass Vs. Financial Commissioner and others AIR 1977 Supreme Court 1221 and in Ram Lal and Others v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361. 9. In Banshi Vs. Lakshmi Narain – 1993 (1) R.L.R. 68, it was held that reason for delay was sought to be explained on the ground that the counsel did not inform the appellant in time, was not accepted since it was primarily the duty of the party himself to have gone to lawyer’s office and enquired about the case, especially when the case was regarding deposit of arrears of rent. The statute also prescribes a time bound programme regarding the deposit to be made. 10. In Jaswant Singh Vs. Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies – 2000 (3) Punj. L.R. 83, it was laid down that cause of delay was that the counsel of the appellant in the lower Court had told them that there was no need of their coming to Court and they would be informed of the result, as and when the decision comes, was held to be a story which cannot be believed. 11. In Bhandari Dass Vs. Sushila, 1997 (2) Raj LW 845, it was held that accusing the lawyer that he did not inform the client about the progress of the case nor has he did sent any letter, was disbelieved while rejecting an application to condone delay. 12. It is well settled that Qui facit per alium facit per se. Negligence of a litigant’s agent is negligence of the litigant himself and is not sufficient cause for condoning delay. See M/s. Chawala & Co. Vs. Felicity Rodrigues, 1971 ACJ 92. 13. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner on merits as well. The State Commission observed: “The only short point in this appeal is as to whether a person can open more than one PPF account with the Post Office. It is not disputed that complainant opened two accounts under PPF in his individual names. On seeking transfer of the accounts to another station and dispute being raised that two accounts could not have been opened and the second account sought to be closed. Complainant raised the issue that second account was as Karta of HUF and nor in his individual name. Both parties did not dispute that one person could only open one PPF account under the rules. No evidence whatsoever has been produced by the complainant, in support of his contention that the subsequent account was an HUF account. This contention is rather contradictory to the account opening form filled up by the complainant. The account opening shows that same is in his individual name. The Public Provident Fund 1986 bars the opening of two accounts. The clarification given by the Government is reproduced as under:- “An individual can open only one account in his name either in the Post Office or in the Bank and he has to declare this in application form for opening the account. Persons having a P.P.F. account in the Bank cannot open other account in the Post Office and vice-versa.” 14. The order rendered by the State Commission cannot be faulted. The revision petition is barred by time and devoid of merits. The same is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. 15. The petition has no merits and the same is dismissed. | 
