|
At the outset, it is observed that there is delay of 55 days in filing this revision petition by the petitioner. The petitioner has filed a miscellaneous application for condonation of this delay, which has been perused by us. The petitioner has given the following reasons for delay in filing the present petition:-
“That after passing of the order by the State Commission, the applicant was told by the counsel at Jalore that limitation period for filing Revision Petition before this Hon’ble Commission is 90 days from passing of impugned appellate order therefore he planned to contact the counsel at Delhi on 25th October 2010 but unfortunately due to severe attack of Jaundice with diarrhea & vomiting the applicant was medically advised to not to move out of house and no other person is in his house who can contact counsel at Delhi therefore he remain unable to contact the counsel in time. Now after got rid of disease and taking medical advice, the applicant contacted the counsel on 14.12.2010 and without any further delay, the petition got drafted but revision petition could not have been filed in limitation period, resulting which the revision petition has became time barred by days.”
As per his own admission, petitioner was not only aware of the passing of the impugned order by the State Commission but he was also conscious of the fact about 90 days period during which he was required to file the revision petition, if any. In spite of this, he planned for his meeting with his counsel on 25.10.2010 whereas the impugned order was passed on 12.08.2010, i.e., after a gap of about 2½ months from the date of the order. This meeting also could not took place because allegedly he was not keeping well. It shows the casual approach of the petitioner in dealing with a time bound matter for which he himself is responsible. The reason given by the petitioner explaining the delay of 55 days is, therefore, not satisfactory or convincing. This petition, in the circumstances, can be dismissed on this ground alone. However, we have considered the petition on merits as well.
2. The petitioner herein is the complainant in this case and respondents no. 1, 2, 3 & 4 were OPs No. 4, 3, 2 & 1 respectively before the District Forum. For the sake of convenience, the parties have been referred to as per their status in the complaint before the District Forum.
3. Briefly stated it is the case of the complainant that OP No. 1 who knew the complainant personally informed the latter that authorised office of OP No. 4 has been opened in Jalore by the name of Radhavallabh Enterprises and the OP company has appointed OP No. 2 as representative agent of Jodhpur Division. The complainant, who wanted to invest Rs.50,000/- at a place where he can get good interest and hence OP No. 1 took him to the office of OP No.2 where he was informed that OP Company was giving maximum interest and in lesser time amount will get doubled. OPs, therefore, persuaded the complainant to make fixed
|
Back
