AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PETITIONER /Complainant has come before us against the order of the State Commission dismissing his appeal which was barred by limitation of 47 days. State Commission did not find any sufficient cause to condone the delay. It is stated that it was the wrong advice of the advocate that there was no delay in filing the appeal. If that is so, counsel may be held guilty for deficiency in service. We cannot fall for the oft repeated argument that client should not suffer for the fault of lawyer. Why should he suffer? He can proceed against the lawyer for professional negligence on account of deficiency in service. We are a consumer Forum where disputes are to be decided in set time schedule. As a matter of fact, under sub-section (3) of Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act no proceedings complying with the procedure laid down in sub-sections (1) and (2) shall be called in question in any court on the ground that the principles of natural justice have not been complied with. It is not disputed that procedures as contained in sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 13 were not complied with. We do not want a Consumer forum to become another civil Court by accepting such specious arguments that there can be ''no fault'' on the part of lawyer representing the client. We do not want to interfere with the order of the State Commission holding that there was no sufficient cause for condoning the delay. Revision Petition is dismissed.