SHASHI SEHGAL Vs. SUNIL KUMAR JINDAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by Dr. Shashi Sehgal against the order of the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in appeal no.450 of 2004. In the impugned order, the appeal of the petitioner against the order of the Sonepat District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum had been dismissed for want of merit. The revision petition has thus been filed against concurrent orders of State as well as District fora.

(2.) The petition itself has been filed with a delay of 26 days. In the application for condonation of delay, it is mentioned that contentions of the petitioner had remained unheard before the State Commission. This has entirely been attributed to the 'extreme negligence' of the advocate representing the revision petitioner before the State Commission. Even the delay in filing the revision petition before this Commission, has been attributed to the failure of the counsel in keeping the petitioner informed of the developments before the State Commission. We do not consider this as a sufficient explanation or justification of the delay.

(3.) The State Commission has clearly recorded that no one appeared on behalf of the appellant (present revision petitioner). Having thus, failed to utilize the opportunity of being heard by the State Commission in her appeal, the revision petitioner now seeks to challenge most of the findings of facts reached by the fora below. Therefore, it needs to be observed at this stage itself that the scope of the present proceedings is a limited one. Under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the power of this Commission to interfere with the impugned order is limited only to the extent the State Commission is found to 'have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity'.