MOUNT KAILASH Vs. COL UPKAR SINGH NERWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Appeal is filed by the Appellant under Section19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab (hereinafter referred to as the "State Commission") in Complaint No. 830/2017 dated 17.04.2018.

(2.) Alongwith the appeal, IA No. 15788/2019, an application for condonation of delay has been filed by the Appellant for condonation of 288 days delay earlier and 197 days delay after obtaining the copy, in filing the present appeal.

(3.) I have heard the Learned Counsel for the Appellant and also carefully perused the record. According to the learned Counsel for the Appellant, the Counsel appointed by the Appellant did not apprise him about the proceedings before the State Commission Punjab. Order dated 17.04.2018 passed by the State Commission came to the knowledge of the Appellant only when notice was received. The second counsel appointed by the Appellant informed him that the case was already decided on 17.04.2018. It is seen from the records that the Appellant had never enquired about the status of his case from his previous counsel. Counsel appear in the Court only on the instructions of the parties and if the party did not enquire from the counsel about the status or outcome of the complaint in the State Commission, it cannot be said that the petitioner has acted with due diligence. There is no contention in the application that the petitioner had made enquiries from his counsel of the proceedings or the orders passed. Thereafter the Appellant applied for certified copy of the order dated 17.04.2018 which was received on 13.01.2019. The Appellant took further time of about 6 months for obtaining originals of MAP and NOC from the previous counsel. Hence the Appeal could not be filed within the period of limitation. After a delay of 288 days, the Appellant states that he came to know of the order of the State Commission and applied for a certified copy. The Appellant by his own admission states that there was a further delay of 197 days after obtaining the certified copy of the impugned order. This delay he explains in terms of time taken to obtain MAP and NOC from the previous counsel. There is no evidence produced by the Appellant to justify this delay. He has not even bothered to bring it to the notice of the Bar Council if the entire delay was due to the previous counsel. Merely for shifting the entire responsibility on the previous counsel, the Appellant seems to be taking shelter for his inaction in filing the present Appeal.