RAM LAUTAN SINGH Vs. ASGAR AKI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER being aggrieved of the dismissal of his appeal by U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow (short, "State Commission") for non -prosecution has preferred this revision petition.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has contended that impugned order has been passed in absence of the petitioner, if the order is allowed to prevail; it would result in grave injustice to the petitioner. It is contended that absence of the petitioner before the appellate forum was unintentional. He was assured by his counsel that he would take care of the proceedings in the appeal and keep the petitioner informed. It is submitted that as and when petitioner approached his counsel to find out the status of his appeal, the counsel told that appeal was not listed for hearing. Thus, the petitioner was under the impression that his counsel was taking care of the appeal and for this reason, he failed to put in appearance in the appellate fora. Learned counsel has thus summed up that for the fault of the advocate, the petitioner should not be penalized.

(3.) ON perusal of record, we find that the consumer complaint against the opposite party was filed in the year 2000. Learned District Forum dismissed the consumer complaint vide its order dated 30.10.2000. The appeal against the order of the District Forum was filed before the State Commission in December, 2000. The appeal remained pending due to non -prosecution till 22.8.2013, when the State Commission dismissed the appeal for non -prosecution with the following observations : -