NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. NC/RP/2777/2024 (Against the Order dated 3rd May 2023 in Appeal No. FA/13/2175 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Madhya pradesh)

WITH NC/IA/16026/2024 (CONDONATION OF DELAY)

NC/IA/16029/2024 (EXCEMPTION OF FILE TYPED COPIES OF DOCUMENTS)

NC/IA/16028/2024 (EXEMPTION FROM FILING THE CERTIFIED COPY)

NC/IA/16030/2024 (EXEMPTION FOR FILING TRANSLATION DOCUMENTS)

NC/IA/16027/2024 (STAY)

KRIPAL SINGH SEHMBEY PRESENT ADDRESS - KRIPAL SINGH SEHMBEY AND SONS MAHAL ROAD GORAYA DISTT JALLANDHAR PUNJAB , JALANDHAR , PUNJAB , .......Petitioner(s)

Versus BANSI & ANR.

PRESENT ADDRESS - VILLAGE LASUDIA TEHSIL DHAR DISTRICT DHAR MADHYA PRADESH , DHAR , MADHYA PRADESH , ANTAR SINGH S/O RAM SINGH PRESENT ADDRESS - VILLAGE LASUDIA TEHSIL DHAR DISTRICT DHAR MADHYA PRADESH , DHAR , MADHYA PRADESH , .......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SAROJ YADAV , PRESIDING MEMBER FOR THE PETITIONER:

FOR THE PETITIONER MR. NIRMAL SINGH JAGDEVA, ADVOCATE (IN VC)

FOR THE RESPONDENT:

FOR THE RESPONDENT NO.1 MS. SONALI KUMAR, ADVOCATE (AMICUS CURIAE)

FOR THE RESPONDENT NO.2 (DECEASED)

DATED: 11/02/2026

ORDER

1. The present revision petition has been filed under Section 58(1) (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 by the petitioner/opposite party being aggrieved of the order dated 03.05.2023, passed by the learned Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal (for short the ‘State Commission’) in First Appeal No. 2175 of 2013, arising out of the order dated 04.07.2013 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dhar, Madhya Pradesh (for short the ‘District Forum’) in Consumer Complaint No. 214 of 2012.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the respondents on the delay condonation application being IA/16026/2024.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the delay in filing of the present revision petition was caused for the reason that the counsel engaged by the petitioner / appellant did not inform the petitioner / appellant about the progress of the appeal filed before the learned State Commission for the last many years. Finally, the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed on 03.05.2023 for non-prosecution. The petitioner / appellant was not aware of the dismissal order, hence the petition could not be filed in time. Therefore, the delay may be condoned and the petitioner / appellant should not be allowed to suffer indefinitely for the mistake of the counsel.

4. Contrary to it, the learned Amicus Curiae submitted that the respondent/original complainant is a farmer. The father of the complainant filed the complaint and he died during the pendency of the matter. The complaint was allowed by the concerned District Forum in favour of the complainant. Thereafter, the appellant / petitioner filed the appeal before the concerned State Commission in the year 2013 and after filing the appeal, the petitioner / appellant remained absent continuously for about seven years just to harass the respondent / complainant. Hence, the application for condonation of delay should be dismissed. Furthermore, there is no proper or sufficient reason has been given in the said delay condonation application.

5. Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the respondent.

6. The impugned order was passed on 03.05.2023 and this petition before this Commission has been filed on 29.10.2024 with a reported delay of 442 days.

7. The reasons given and submissions made are not convincing enough to condone such a huge delay. If the counsel is not informing about the progress of the appeal then it was the duty of the petitioner / appellant to enquire about the appeal filed by him. Not enquiring about the appeal filed, for the years together shows the gross negligence on the part of the petitioner / appellant.