VINAYAK USKELWAR Vs. RANJANA W/O. SURESH FEDEWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 5.10.2011 of State Commission, Maharashtra in First Appeal No.A -09/761. The present petition, however, has been filed with a delay of 1485 days after the expiry of 90 days of period of limitation. The petitioner, therefore, has moved an application for condonation of delay being I.A. No.4870 of 2016.

(2.) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner received the free copy of the impugned order of the State Commission by post on 09.02.2012. The petitioner, thereafter contacted his counsel but counsel did not advise him to challenge the order in revision. The petitioner because of wrong legal advice could not file the revision petition in time. It is argued that though the petitioner was interested in pursuing his rights, he was prevented from filing the revision petition within the period limitation and because of wrong legal advice of his counsel, for which petitioner should not be penalized and if the delay is not condoned, the petitioner shall suffer irreparable loss and injustice.

(3.) The aforesaid explanation of the petitioner is not satisfactory, for the reasons that on perusal of the application for condonation of delay. From the record, it transpires that we find that execution proceedings under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 were initiated by the Respondent - -Decree holder. The said proceedings were contested by the petitioner and the executing court vide order dated 16.4.2013 convicted the petitioner for non -compliance of the order of the District Forum (confirmed by the State Commission in appeal) and sentenced him undergo an imprisonment for a period of six months, besides fine of Rs.10,000/ -. Petitioner even has filed an execution appeal under Section 27 -A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in the State Commission, which is still pending. Thus, it is clear that even after being served with notice of Execution Proceedings under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the petitioner opted to contest said proceedings but did not file revision petition. This clearly shows that petitioner was grossly negligent and his explanation for delay is not satisfactory.