NEELAM GUPTA Vs. ONIDA SWTICH GEAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the parties present. Learned counsel for the respondent has filed Vakalatnama. Arguments heard.

(2.) The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/complainant as the first appeal was dismissed by the State Commission on the ground that it was delayed by 40 days. The State Commission came to the conclusion that the complainant/petitioner was required to prove that there was sufficient cause for condonation of delay but he failed to do so. The case of the complainant is that it took sometime to complete and arrange the paper-book. The State Commission observed that day-to-day delay was not explained by the complainant.

(3.) The next submission made by the complainant was that father-in-law of the advocate had fallen sick and ultimately died. The State Commission contended that there was no affidavit of the advocate in support of these contentions. Even the affidavit filed by the complainant/petitioner was not correctly verified. It is surprising to note that during the dictation of this order, learned counsel for the complainant submits that he will now file the affidavit of the advocate in support of the case. Perhaps he has not read the order of the State Commission. He should have come prepared in the Commission. Despite the warning given by the State Commission, the needful was not done. There appears to be negligence, inaction and passivity on the part of the complainant.