Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
J.M. Malik, Presiding Member and Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Member
SHAIKH ZAKIRUDDIN - Appellant
Versus
VIJAY - Respondent
Revision Petition No. 1097 of 2014 from Order dated 6.5.2013 in First Appeal No. 31 of 2011 of Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench, Aurangabad with I.A. Nos. 961, 962 of 2014 (Stay and Condonation of Delay)
Decided on : 27-02-2014
Mr. J.N. Singh, Advocate, for the Appellant
The negligence of a litigant's agent is negligence of the litigant himself and is not sufficient cause for condoning delay.
Headnote:
Default - Dismissal of Appeal - None - The court dismissed the appeal in default as neither the appellant nor the respondent appeared before the Commission. The court found the ex parte judgment and order to be just, legal, and proper, and therefore dismissed the appeal. The delay in filing the revision petition was explained by the petitioner's serious illness, but the court dismissed the revision petition due to the unsatisfactory explanation for the delay, citing legal precedents to support its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant and his counsel were absent during the proceedings, leading to the dismissal of the appeal in default. The petitioner filed a revision petition with an application for condonation of delay, citing the petitioner's serious illness as the reason for the delay.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the appeal in default and the revision petition, citing unsatisfactory explanation for the delay and legal precedents supporting its decision.
Issues: Dismissal of appeal in default, condonation of delay in filing the revision petition
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the absence of the appellant and his counsel during the proceedings led to the dismissal of the appeal in default. The court also dismissed the revision petition due to the unsatisfactory explanation for the delay, citing legal precedents to support its decision.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal in default and the revision petition, and directed the Registry to report to the Medical Council of India regarding the issuance of a medical certificate by a pathologist.
ORDER
Mr. Justice J.M. Malik, Presiding Member (Oral)- Learned Counsel for the petitioner heard.
2. The State Commission passed the following order:
"None for the appellant as well as the respondent are present. Their respective Counsel are also absent, The record reflects that the appellant as well as his Counsel are also absent since 8.10.2012. However, on last date the matter was adjourned till today by way of last chance subject to condition of depositing cost of Rs. 500 in the legal aid account of this Commission. But the same is not complied with. On the contrary, the appellant as well as his Counsel are absent. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed in default. Hence it be recalled at 3.00 p.m. for order.
2. Matter is recalled at 3.30 p.m. but nobody for the appellant is present. So also the respondent. We have perused the copy of impugned judgment and order and also the copies of complaint and we find that the impugned ex parte judgment and order is just, legal and proper. Therefore, no interference is warranted. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to cost."
3. After this order, the revision petition was filed which is further delayed by 181 days. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has filed an application for condonation of delay. The delay is explained in paras 3 and 4 of the application for condonation of delay, which is reproduced as under:
"3. That the petitioner was seriously ill due to serious illness he was advised to take bed rest by the doctor from 12.3.2013 to 14.11.2013 and therefore, could not contact to his Counsel representing him in the State Commission and due to which some delay is caused in filing the present revision petition which is not intentional and deliberate and the copy of medical certificate is annexed with the present revision.
4. The petitioner submits that the matter was dismissed in default and no intimation was given by his Advocate and he could not contact his Advocate due to illness and due to the said reason and unavoidable circumstances some delay is caused in filing the present revision petition and in the facts and circumstances narrated above which was beyond the control of petitioner herein the Hon'ble Commission may be condoned the present revision petition."
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention to the fact that the doctor has certified that the petitioner was lying sick from 12.3.2013. He has filed the medical certificate which is issued by one Dr. S. M. Sarosia, M.B.B.S., D.C.P., M.D. (Patho.), Registration No. 29682 Barudgarnala, Aurangabad-431001 wherein it is mentioned that the patient was suffering from cervical spondylitis from 12.3.2013 to 14.11.2013. It was further mentioned that he is medically fit to resume his duties/work/school w.e.f. 15.11.2013. It, therefore, means that the Doctor has got printed the documents and he is not an expert in this specialty to advise and treat such patient, which related to orthopedic. The medical certificate appears to be false. The matter be reported to the Medical Council with the request that such like doctor should be debarred from issuing such like certificates when they are not expert in the specific field, A copy of this order be sent to the Medical Council of India along with photocopy of medical certificate. Moreover, as per the certificate, the appellant was not able to attend the Commission from 12.3.2013.
5. Now let us turn to the impugned order It mentions that nobody appeared before the Commission since 8.10.2012, The explanation of five months is not satisfactory. The application for condonation of delay is subsequently silent about the same. The matter is barred by time This view is supported by following authorities in Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), R.B. Ramlinqam v. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) SLT 701 and Ram Lal and Others v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 SC 361, Bikram Pass v. Financial Commissioner and Others, AIR 1977 SC 1
