PER DR. S.M. KANTIKAR, MEMBER

1. The present Revision Petition has been filed before this Commission under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 09.07.2013 in Appeal No. 3357/2011 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short, ‘State Commission’). The State Commission dismissed the Appeal filed against the order in Complaint No Consumer Complaint 204 of 2010 dated 12.04.2010 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, (in short, ‘District Forum’).
2. The complainant Mr. Sadashiva S. Yelagod, availed legal services of the OP  Mr. Gururaj Joshi , as an Advocate to contest his criminal case before the Karnataka High Court  Bench at Gulburga. He paid Rs.5000/- as professional fees to the OP.  Since , the OP could not make his appearance on 30.10.2008, the date fixed, resulted in dismissal of his case. Hence, complainant alleged that, it was the deficiency in service and professional misconduct he lost his case, incurred huge expenses for further legal recourse etc. Hence, he filed a complaint before District Forum, Gulburga.
3. The District Forum dismissed the complaint, and subsequently the first appear filed by the complainant before State Commission, Bangalore was also dismissed.
4. Therefore, aggrieved by the order of State Commission, he complainant filed this revision petition.
5. Heard the complainant in person at admission stage. He argued that, the OP did not appear before the High Court on the date fixed, the court decided the matter in his absence, hence lost his case. He also, approached the Bar Council, but did not get relief.
6. I have heard the Petitioner in-person and Counsel Ms. K. Radha, for the OP and perused the orders on the file, the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, (Circuit Bench), the State Commission, and the District Forum, Gulburga.  Counsel for OP brought my attention toward the delay and the medical certificate. It is clearly noted that the Complainant filed the appeal before the State Commission with a delay of 127 days. The reason stated by the Complainant was that, he was suffering from skin allergic reaction from the past one year and was also taking treatment for Root Canal and hence, there was a delay in filing the appeal. The State Commission did not condone the delay because it was very vague and not there was no supporting, even the documents relying to his health were not produced along with the application of delay.
7. The Complainant/Petitioner approached this Commission again with a delay of 81 days for filing this Revision Petition. The application for  condonation of delay filed by the complainant  him, speak about the reasons, which are reproduced as hereunder:

Para 2. It is submitted that there is a delay of 81 days in filing the Revision Petition because the Petitioner was suffering from Acute Allergic Asthama and malaria and was advised to take bed rest for 6 months i.e. from 09.08.2013 to 09.02.2014. After recovery from the suffering the Petitioner came to Delhi in the first week of February following early recover and is filing the present Revision Petition without any further delay. The copy of medical certificate is enclosed.

1. The medical certificate is also on file, which shows that the complainant was advised complete bed rest for 6 months. It is quite surprising that the Acute Allergic Asthama with Malaria are treatable condition, which will be cured within a span of 7 to 10 days. Also, both the diseases were not so serious illness, won’t warrant for complete bed rest for 6 months. The copy of the medical certificate was issued by Dr.Gururaj Kulkarni ,  is reproduced as under:

Shanti Medical Centre

Medical Certificate

            This is to certify that Shri/Smt. SADASHIVA S. YELAGOD R/o Godutai Nagar, Gulbarga is/was under my care, and for the treatment of ACUTE ALLERGIC ASTHAMA & MALARIA. He/She is/was advised complete bed rest for 6 months days. Effects from 09/08/2013 to 09/02/2014. Now, He/she is fit to resume duties wef.­­­­­­­­­­__________.

The prescription given by Dr. Gururaj B. Kulkarni is only a single page  for date 09.08.2013 with noting of drugs , it do not specify the how many days the treatment to be continued. He has prescribed very few medicines which can last for not more than 2-3 days. There are no relevant investigation reports or any advice of any investigation for Allergy or Malaria. It is pertinent to note that, after 9.8.2012, the Complainant never visited the Shanti Medical Centre during follow up. Therefore, production of such irrelevant certificates will not establish the truth that he was under complete bed rest for 6 months, which prevented him to file the revision in time. It is surprising to note that,   that at every instance of approaching the courts, State Commission and the National Commission the Complainant fell sick. The complainant was not confined to bed for 6 months. Hence, the application for condonation of delay is rejected, because the matter is barred by time. This view is supported by following Hon’ble Supre Court’s authorities in Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), R.B. Ramlingam v. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) CLT 188 (SC) and Ram Lal and Others v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, Bikram Dass Vs. Financial Commissioner and others AIR 1977 Supreme Court 1221.

1. Discussing on merit, the State Commission and the District Forum have already made the observations correctly that the High Court of Karnataka (Circuit bench) at Gulbarga decided the criminal complaint no. 2579/2008 which was decided on merits only in the absence of the advocate for the Complainant. The OP did not attend the High Court for a bonafide reason that the he has to attend the ailing father. The Complainant was negligent in not procuring the Certified copies of all the documents of Spl. Case No. 128/2007 from the Spl. Court Gulburga, for its study and presentation before the court for quashing. Since the matter was decided by the Court on merits, even the presence or absence of the Counsel for the Petitioner i.e. OP would not have changed the order.
2. Thus the High Court has not dismissed the case of complainant as dismissed in default, but it was decided on merits. In the instant case, the OP’s affidavit states that, on 29-10-2008 his father aged about 75 years was suffering from urology related problems, he was admitted in a nursing home at Raichur on emergency and on 30-10-2008 he underwent an operation, as much he was forced to stay back at Raichur on 29-10-2008 and 30-10-2008 to attend his ailing father. As such, posting of the said criminal petition on 30-10-2008 did not come to his knowledge, so he could not appear.
3. Hence, I do not find any error in the order passed by both the fora, need any interference. Therefore, due to lack of merit and on the ground of huge delay in filing this Revision Petition as well as the first appeal before State Commission; this revision petition is dismissed.