w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Gupta Travels v/s Mata Deen Soni

    Revision Petition No. 961 of 2020

    Decided On, 21 January 2021

    At, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC

    By, THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA
    By, PRESIDING MEMBER

    For the Appearing Parties: --------



Judgment Text

The present Revision Petition, under Section 58 (1) (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (for short "the Act") has been filed by the Petitioner challenging the order dated 03.03.2020 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh (for short "the State Commission") in Appeal No.521 of 2016 whereby the Appeal of the Petitioner was dismissed in default on account of non-appearance on four consecutive dates.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the Appeal No.521 of 2016 was filed by the Petitioner challenging the order dated 08.01.2016 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chitrakoot (for short "the District Forum") in Complaint No.8 of 2015. The impugned order of the State Commission is reproduced as under:

"No one is present from the side of appellant. Sh.Ankit Gupta, Ld. Counsel for the respondent appeared. No one also appeared on behalf of appellant on 22.06.2018, on 16.11.2018 & 26.12.2019. today also no one is present to press the appeal. Therefore, appeal is dismissed in the absence of the appellant."

3. From the impugned order, it is apparent that the Petitioner did not attend the proceedings before the Appellate court on four consecutive dates. The reason given is that the Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant did not inform the Appellant about the status of the case before the State Commission. From the grounds given in the present Revision Petition, it is apparent that the Petitioner could not appear before the State Commission on 03.03.2020 since he was not aware of the particular date and his Counsel had also not informed him. However, there is no explanation given for non-appearance of the Appellant on the previous dates, i.e., 22.06.2018, 16.11.2018 and 26.12.2019.

4. The another contention is that the Petitioner was not aware of the order dated 03.03.2020 as mentioned in para (h) of the grounds of present Revision Petition. Since his Counsel was avoiding to give him any information, he engaged another Advocate when he learnt that the Appeal was dismissed in default on 03.03.2020. Nowhere in the ground of appeal, the Petitioner has given reasons for non-appearance either of him or his Counsel on 22.06.2018, 16.11.2018 and 26.12.2019. It is the cardinal duty of the client to remain diligent and watchful of his case. It is his duty to enquire from his Counsel as to what was happening in his case and if he chooses to remain in slumber and unmindful of the proceedings in his case, he cannot subsequently take advantage of his carelessness and negligent attitude. In this case, no explanation has been given for non-appearance on previous dates 22.06.2018, 16.11.2018 and 26.12.2019. Nothing had stopped the Petitioner to go to the State Commission by himself and enquire about the case or do the inspection if his Counsel was not informing him about the case and was not acting as p

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

er his instructions. It is apparent that the Petitioner was not acting diligently. I found no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. The present Revision Petition has no merit and the same is dismissed with no order to costs in limine. 5. Copy of the order be sent to the Fora below and to the Complainant.
O R