JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER(ORAL)
1. The petitioner is present in person. 2. There is delay of 386 days in filing the present revision petition. 3. I have perused the order passed by the State Commission. The State Commission dismissed the first appeal because there was delay of 134 days in filing the appeal. The State Commission did not find that there was sufficient cause for condonation of delay and the first appeal was dismissed on the ground that there was delay of 134 days. Warning bells should have rung. However, there is delay of 386 days in filing the present revision petition. The petitioner has explained the delay in para 2 of his application. The said para is reproduced hereunder: “2.That the petitioner/applicant was not aware about the personal details of his counsel namely, Sh. Arvinder Arora as he was engaged by one Sh. S. B. Bakhshi, Advocate in the present case and he was not having even contact number of Sh. Arvinder Arora and it was only when he enquired about the above mentioned Sh. Arvinder Arora, he got his contact number on 29.11.2013 and after enquiry he came to know that his appeal preferred before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh has been dismissed vide order dated -3- 04.10.2012. It is pertinent to mention here that his above said counsel collected the copy of the above said order dated 04.10.2012 for filing the revision petition, but as his counsel namely Sh. Arvinder Arora was also not having the contact number of the applicant/petitioner, so he failed to contact the applicant/petitioner and also failed to convey about the above said order to him. Same day, the petitioner/applicant moved an application under RTI for the order of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh and also got copy of the above said impugned order dated 04.10.2012. 4. The petitioner submits that he knows Mr. S. B. Bakhshi. He further submits that he met him for more than 20 times and called him for more than 40 times. It was the bounden duty to contact Shri S. B. Bakshi if he was not aware of the whereabouts of Shri Arvinder Arora. No explanation is given why he has not gone to the office of Shri S. B. Bakhshi. According to the petitioner, free copy of the order was obtained by the colleague of Shri Arvinder Arora. The same was received by him. The petitioner has not taken any action against the above said advocate. He submits that the other advocates refused to take action against Shri S. B. Bakhshi, advocate or Shri Arvinder Arora. This is frivolous argument. He should have filed a complaint before the Bar Council of India. It was his bounden duty to post himself with each and every hearing by going to the office of his advocate. Mr. S. B. -4- Bakhshi was known to him and there is no evidence that he visited his office even for a single time. The case is hopelessly barred by time. 5. This view neatly dovetails with the following authorities. 6. The Apex Court in Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), held that “It is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if this Court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the Consumer Foras”. 7. Similar view was also taken in R.B. Ramlingam v. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) CLT 188 (SC)= I (2009) SLT 701=2009 (2) Scale 108 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. 8. In Banshi Vs. Lakshmi Narain – 1993 (1) R.L.R. 68, it was held that reason for delay was sought to be explained on the ground that the counsel did not inform the appellant in time, was not accepted since it was primarily -5- the duty of the party himself to have gone to lawyer’s office and enquired about the case. 9. Similar view was taken in Jaswant Singh Vs. Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies – 2000 (3) Punj. L.R. 83; Bhandari Dass Vs. Sushila, 1997 (2) Raj LW 845. t 10. It is well settled that Qui facit per alium facit per se, negligence of a litigant’s agent is negligence of the litigant himself and is not sufficient cause for condoning delay. 11. It is difficult to fathom why he could not come to know the address of Shri Arvinder Arora through Shri S. B. Bakhshi. The revision petition is without force, therefore, the same is hereby dismissed. | 
