CHAIRMAN ALAND SAHAKARI SAKKARE KHARKHANE NIYAMITHA Vs. SHANTILANGAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition by the opposite parties is against the order of the State Commission dismissing their appeal as barred by limitation.

(2.) Complaint pertains to sugarcane crop grown by the complainant. He filed complaint before District Forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioners-opposite parties, owner of the sugar factory for not cutting and lifting the sugarcane crop. Complaint was partly allowed by the District Forum. Appeal by the petitioners to the State Commission, as noted above, was dismissed as barred by limitation. In the application seeking condonation of delay the sufficient cause given was that the lawyer gave a wrong advice that the appeal could be filed within a period of 60 days. When the matter came up for admission before us it was submitted that an affidavit shall be filed from the lawyer who gave the wrong advice. In spite of the opportunity having been given since December, 2001 no affidavit has been filed. It is submitted that it is difficult to get the affidavit from the lawyer. That being the position, it would appear that the stand taken by the petitioner was not correct and that the condonation of delay was sought on the shoulder of the Advocate hoping that it will be a good ground without any further difficulty.

(3.) We do not find that there was any merit in the application seeking condonation of delay and it was dismissed and so also the appeal. It is not a fit case for us to exercise our jurisdiction under Clause (b) of Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act. This revision petition is dismissed. Revision Petition dismissed.