IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 10206/2025 Decided on: 06.08.2026 Bhupinder Pal Mahajan …..Petitioner Versus New Assurance Company Ltd. .....Respondent ………………………………………………………………………………… Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Suneet Goel, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vivek Negi, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Praneet Gupta, Advocate. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J. The petitioner preferred a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (the Act, in short), before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mandi, H.P. on 08.08.2016. The said complaint was filed seeking directions to the respondent to pay the ‘remaining’ amount of own damage claim of Rs. 17,58,085/- along with interest at 12% per annum alongwith certain other reliefs. The complaint was dismissed on 19.11.2018. First Appeal No. 70/2022, instituted by the petitioner on 01.07.2022 before the H.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla, was dismissed on 18.09.2023. The dismissal was 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 on the ground that the appeal was barred by delay of 456 days (according to learned counsel for the respondent, the delay was much more than 456 days). While preferring Appeal No. 70/2022, the petitioner had filed an application under Section 41 of the Act read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal on the ground that he had engaged Sh. Vikram Thakur, learned Advocate, for preferring the appeal within the prescribed period, but the learned Advocate did not file the appeal within time. It was pleaded in the application that the petitioner should not be made to suffer for the fault of his learned counsel. While dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay, vide order dated 18.09.2023, learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission observed that, though the petitioner had attributed the delay to his learned Advocate, he had not furnished the affidavit of the learned Advocate in support of his assertions. The relevant observations of the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission are as under: - “11. Perusal of the record shows that there is delay of 456 days in filing the present appeal. 12. The applicant/appellant has filed an application under section 41 of the consumer Protection Act, 2019 read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the appeal on the ground that Sh.Vikram Thakur, Advocate to whom the applicant/appellant had handed over the case file, did not file the appeal within limitation. 13. In support of his application, the appellant/applicant has filed his own affidavit only and has failed to obtain the affidavit of Sh. Vikram Thakur, Advocate to corroborate the aforesaid factum. 3 Therefore, we are not convinced with the contention of the appellant/applicant that his previous counsel did not file the appeal within time. 14. Since there is delay of 456 days in filing the appeal, the said delay has not satisfactorily been explained. 15. The judgment relied upon by the applicant/appellant are not appliable in the facts and circumstances of present case. 16. Thus, we find no reason to allow the present application. Therefore, the application filed for condonation of delay of 456 in filing the appeal is dismissed. 17. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant being barred by limitation is also dismissed.” The aforesaid order was not interfered with by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, which dismissed Revision Petition No. 2714/2023 filed by the petitioner. It is in the above background that the petitioner has taken recourse to Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the present writ petition against the order dated 18.09.2023 passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, as also the order dated 16.12.2024 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file. 3. For completion of facts, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had filed another complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the learned District Consumer 4 Disputes Redressal Forum on 29.08.2017, which was also decided against the petitioner on 19.11.2018. The second complaint was also challenged by the petitioner by filing an appeal on 01.07.2022 before the learned H.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla. It was dismissed on 24.07.2023 on the similar ground of being barred by delay of 456 days and on the ground that the petitioner had not filed the affidavit of his learned counsel along with the appeal, to whom the delay in instituting the appeal was attributed. The petitioner preferred a revision petition against the order passed by the learned H.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in the second complaint. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission condoned the delay of 456 days in Revision Petition No. 2369/2023 vide order dated 01.11.2023. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that reference to the order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on 01.11.2023 has been made only to show that a different approach was adopted in the second revision petition preferred by the petitioner, wherein the delay was condoned and the matter was remanded back to the H.P. State Commission for decision, whereas in the instant case, the same delay, which was sought to be condoned on the same ground and as was condoned in Revision Petition No. 2369/2023, was not condoned. 5 Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent had preferred The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Bhupinder Pal Mahajan2 against the order dated 01.11.2023 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in petitioner's Revision Petition No. 2369/2023. The said petition was allowed on 27.11.2025, as the order dated 01.11.2023 had been passed without even issuing notice to the respondent. While allowing the writ petition, the Court directed the National Commission to re-hear the revision petition after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties. The said revision petition is stated to be pending adjudication before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. Be that as it may. 4. Admittedly, there was delay of 456 days (according to learned counsel for the respondent, the period of delay exceeds 456 days) in instituting the appeal before the State Consumer Commission. The State Consumer Commission had declined to condone the delay on the ground that the petitioner had attributed the delay to his learned counsel, but without appending any affidavit of the learned counsel in support of his assertions. Along with this writ petition, the petitioner has placed on record an affidavit of his learned counsel. In terms of the affidavit dated 22.04.2026 (pages 124 to 126), the learned counsel has sworn that he had been engaged by the petitioner in December, 2018 2 CWP No. 8799/2024 decided on 27.11.2025 6 for filing an appeal before the H.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission against the order dated 19.11.2018 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shimla, in Consumer Complaint No. 199/2016. It has further been stated that the learned Advocate had apprised the petitioner that there was no requirement of his presence and that he would be updated about the proceedings of the appeal telephonically. The appeal could not be filed by the learned Advocate on account of his pre-occupation with family and personal reasons, as detailed in the affidavit, and the subsequent COVID-19 pandemic. It was on 24.06.2022 when the petitioner inquired about the status of his case, whereupon he was informed by learned Advocate that he had not filed the appeal due to the reasons now detailed in the affidavit, whereafter the petitioner collected his file from the learned Advocate. Learned counsel for the respondent disputes the contents of the affidavit on the strength of counter-affidavit filed by the respondent on 25.06.2026. Rafiq and Anr. Vs. Munshilal & Anr.3 holds the party should not suffer for the inaction, deliberate omission, or misdemeanour of his agent, the lawyer. Portion relevant reads as under: - “3. The disturbing feature of the case is that under our present adversary legal system where the parties generally appear through their advocates, the obligation of the parties is to select his advocate, brief him, pay the fees demanded by him and then trust the learned advocate to do the rest of the things. The party may be a villager or 3 (1981) 2 SCC 788 7 may belong to a rural area and may have no knowledge of the court's procedure. After engaging a lawyer, the party may remain supremely confident that the lawyer will look after his interest. At the time of the hearing of the appeal, the personal appearance of the party is not only not required but hardly useful. Therefore, the party having done everything in his power to effectively participate in the proceedings can rest assured that he has neither to go to the High Court to inquire as to what is happening in the High Court with regard to his appeal nor is he to act as a watchdog of the advocate that the latter appears in the matter when it is listed. It is no part of his job ………………. What is the fault of the party who having done everything in his power and expected of him would suffer because of the default of his advocate. If we reject this appeal, as Mr. A.K. Sanghi invited us to do, the only one who would suffer would not be the lawyer who did not appear but the party whose interest he represented. The problem that agitates us is whether it is proper that the party should suffer for the inaction, deliberate omission, or misdemeanour of his agent. The answer obviously is in the negative. Maybe that the learned advocate absented himself deliberately or intentionally. We have no material for ascertaining that aspect of the matter. We say nothing more on that aspect of the matter. However, we cannot be a party to an innocent party suffering injustice merely because his chosen advocate defaulted. Therefore, we allow this appeal, set aside the order of the High Court both dismissing the appeal and refusing to recall that order. We direct that the appeal be restored to its original number in the High Court and be disposed of according to law. If there is a stay of dispossession it will continue till the disposal of the matter by the High Court. There remains the question as to who shall pay the costs of the respondent here. As we feel that the party is not responsible because he has done whatever was possible and was in his power to do, the costs amounting to Rs.200/- should be recovered from the advocate who absented himself. The right to execute that order is reserved with the party represented by Mr. A.K.Sanghi. 8 Learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission declined to condone the delay there being no affidavit on record of the learned counsel for the petitioner, to whom the cause for the delay was attributed. Such affidavit has now been placed on record. In the given facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, it is deemed appropriate to direct the H.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission to consider the matter afresh after taking into consideration the aforementioned affidavit of the learned Advocate for the petitioner, in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly. Hence, the impugned orders dated 18.09.2023 (Annexure P-7) passed by the H.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and dated 16.12.2024 (Annexure P-8) passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, shall stand set aside. The parties, through their learned counsel, are directed to appear before the H.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on 07.09.2026. The petitioner is permitted to place on record before the H.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission a certified copy of the affidavit dated 22.04.2026, filed by his learned counsel in the present writ petition. The respondent shall be at liberty to respond thereto, in accordance with law. In view of above observations, the instant petition to stand disposed of. 9 Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 6th August, 2026 (rohit)