IMPORTANT POINT
Negligence on the part of the Advocate cannot always be taken as a ground by a party for condoning the delay.—Para 5

ORDER

MA No.146 of 2017 has been filed for restoration of the revision petition No.1243 of 2010 which was dismissed in default vide order dated 02.11.2015 passed by this Commission. This revision petition was filed against the order dated 11.11.2009 of the State Commission passed in Appeal No.427 & 442 of 2007. The complainant as well as the opposite parties both filed revision petition being Nos.1243 of 2010 & 4541 of 2009 respectively before this Commission. Both the revision petitions were dismissed in default and for non-prosecution vide order dated 02.11.2015 passed by this Commission. MA has been filed on 27.03.2017. As per Regulation No. 14 (ii) of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005 only 30 days period is allowed to file the application for restoration. However in the present case restoration application has been filed with a delay of about 15 months. Along with MA, the application for condonation of delay has also been filed. A perusal of this application indicates that the applicant is putting all the blame on the concerned Advocate Ms. Aarohi Bhalla, Advocate, who was handling the case of the applicant. It has been stated that the applicant tried to contact his counsel Ms. Aarohi Bhalla, but he could not respond, therefore, he could not get the information of dismissal of his revision petition. It is also stated in the application that the applicant then engaged another counsel, who inspected the file and gave the information on 21.03.2017 that the revision petition was dismissed on 02.11.2015. Immediately, the MA for restoration has been filed on 27.03.2017. In these circumstances, it has been requested to condone the delay in filing the restoration and to restore the revision petition at its original number.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant who mentioned the same circumstances as mentioned in the application for condonation of delay and argued that he has a strong case on merits and if the restoration is not allowed, he would suffer irreparable loss.

3. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and have examined the record. Entrusting a case to a counsel does not absolve the party all together and the responsibility to pursue the case remains with the party because he will be affected by any order passed by the court. A period of 30 days is provided for filing the restoration application in the Regulation No.14 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005. This Regulation reads as under:—

14. Limitation.—(1)

(ii) Application for setting aside the ex-parte order under section 22A or dismissal of the complaint in default shall be maintainable if filed within thirty days from the date of the order or date of receipt of the order, as the case may be;

4. Based on the above Regulation, it is clear that an application after a lapse of 30 days from the date of impugned order or from the date of knowledge of the order would not be maintainable. In the present case, the order was passed on 02.11.2015 and the order dated 02.11.2015 was communicated to the counsel of both the parties on 19.11.2015 as reported by the Registry on enquiry. As claimed by the complainant in the application for condonation of delay that the complainant came to know this order dated 02.11.2015 on 21.03.2017 when his new counsel inspected the file, clearly the petitioner did not bother to pursue his case for a long time, otherwise he could not have waited for such a long time to contact a new counsel. Thus, clearly the restoration application has been filed with a delay beyond 30 days and according to Consumer Protection Regulation No.14(ii), the application for restoration is not maintainable. In taking this view, this Commission is supported by decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited Vs. Gujarat Energy Transmission Corporation Limited & Ors., (2017) 5 SCC 42: (2017) 1 CPR 763, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed the following:—

“18. …….