DHARAM RAJ Vs. RAMESH PUBLISHING HOUSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE is a delay of 58 days in filing this revision petition. The petitioner has filed an application for condonation of delay. We have perused the application and found that the reasons given by the petitioner in support of his application are not at all satisfactory and do not constitute sufficient cause to enable us to condone the delay. Admittedly, the petitioner received a copy of the impugned order dated 8.11.2010 by post on 4.12.2010 and he had 90 days ' time to take action required for filing the revision petition. The main reason given in favour of his request is that he had been shuttling between the DCDRF and SCDRC but could not reach to file and hence caused the delay of 58/57 days in filing the revision petition. We do not consider this as sufficient cause for condonation of delay and hence are not inclined to condone the delay of 58/57 days in filing the petition and the petition can be dismissed on this ground alone. However, in the interest of justice, we have looked into the merits of the case as well.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the petitioner, who is the complainant in this case, is a practising Advocate at Panipat. He had purchased a book of general knowledge from the book depot of opposite party No. 3/respondent No. 3. In the book, the publication year was printed as 2001. However, according to the petitioner, the general knowledge information printed in the said book was upto the year 1998 and also some of the answers given were wrong. It is the grievance of the petitioner that he had to appear in the SSC examination of graduate level and had very short time at his disposal to prepare for this examination. Since the book sold by the opposite party contained outdated information even though the year of publication was mentioned as 2001, he could not prepare himself well to appear in the aforesaid examination. Thus, alleging it to be a case of deficiency in service, he sought compensation of Rs. 2 lakh along with interest @18% per annum besides litigation expenses from the opposite party, through a complaint filed by him before the District Forum. On being noticed, the opposite parties appeared and resisted the claim of the complainant by taking the plea that he being an Advocate has misused the process of law for which they propose to take action separately. They also took the plea that the complainant never approached the opposite party after purchasing the book in question. Denying any kind of deficiency of service they prayed for dismissal of the complaint. On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced on record by them, the District Forumvide its order dated 28.4.2003 accepted the complaint in terms of the following reliefs:

(3.) WE have heard the petitioner in person and perused the record. It is seen that the State Commission has dismissed the appeal on the ground of territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum as well as on merits. The main contention of the petitioner in person is that even though at the beginning of the book, the year of publication is mentioned as 2001, the book actually contained out -dated information and hence he could not prepare well with reference to the questions asked in the SSC examination. He, however, admitted that he has not produced contents of the syllabus with reference to which he had alleged that the material given in the book was out -dated. The State Commission while accepting the appeal of the opposite parties and setting aside the order of the District Forum, has recorded the following reasons in its detailed order in support of its decision against the petitioner: