PRATAP SINGH Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -In this revision, challenge is to the order dated 6.1.2006 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Chandigarh. Along with revision petition, the petitioner has filed application seeking condonation of 278 days delay in filing petition. Ground on which delay is sought to be condoned has been set out particularly in para No. 3 of the condonation application. It is alleged that copy of the order dated 6.1.2006 was dispatched to the petitioner on 20.1.2006 and, thereafter the petitioner visited Delhi and engaged a lawyer in the month of March, 2006. Though revision petition was drafted within limitation period but it could not be filed as the file was misplaced. File was traced out while re-arranging and cleaning the office during vacations and present petition is being filed immediately thereafter. Limitation for filing revision is 90 days. Draft petition which is stated to be misplaced, was ready by April, 2006. Revision petition has been filed on 9.1.2007. If the copy of the order dated 6.1.2006 along with draft petition was misplaced the petitioner could have obtained another certified copy of the order and got the petition re-drafted which he did not do. Allegations as made in para No. 3 appear to have been concocted and on basis thereof the delay in question cannot be condoned.

(2.) Coming to the merit, as may be seen from aforesaid order dated 6.1.2006, appeal against District Forum's order was filed by the respondent/opposite party authority, no one was present on behalf of petitioner/complainant on that date and appeal was dismissed as withdrawn on the basis of statement made by Shri Amandeep Singh, Counsel of respondent authority. State Commission had not committed any material irregularity or jurisdictional error in dismissing the appeal as withdrawn taking note of the statement made by the Counsel of authority (appellant).

(3.) Accordingly, revision petition is dismissed on both the said grounds. Revision Petition dismissed.