State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Vivekananda Gupta (Director) vs Swapan Sarkar on 16 May, 2017
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION WEST BENGAL 11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087 First Appeal No. A/856/2016 (Arisen out of Order Dated 15/03/2016 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/46/2015 of District Hooghly) 1. Vivekananda Gupta (Director) The Guruji Travels & Tours Pvt. Ltd., 47/1, Peare Pore Road, Seoraphuli. 2. The Guruji Travels 286, B.B. Ganguly Street, 1st Floor, Kolkata - 700 012. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Swapan Sarkar S/o Lt. Upendra Nath Sarkar, Chandanagore, Sub Hospital Staff Quarter, P.O. & P.S. - Chandanagore, Dist. - Hooghly. ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. SHYAMAL GUPTA PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. UTPAL KUMAR BHATTACHARYA MEMBER For the Appellant: Mr. Abhik Das, Ms. Koyeli Mukhopadhyay, Mr. Abhishek Sengupta, Advocate For the Respondent: Suman Bhattacharjee., Advocate Dated : 16 May 2017 Final Order / Judgement Order No. 6 date: 16-05-2017 Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member
Record is put up today for passing order in respect of the delay condonation petition of the Appellants.
It is the case of the Appellants that they contested the case before the Ld. District Forum through their employee. It is alleged that the said employee did not apprise the Appellants about passing of the impugned order. After returning from his professional assignment at Andaman in the last week of May, 2016, the Appellant no. 1 enquired about the matter. Meanwhile, because of his infirm health, he could not move out of his house for two months. After receiving notice of the Execution Case, the Appellants got in touch with the Ld. Advocate concerned and afterwards, the Appeal was filed on 12-09-2016.
The Respondent filed a W.O. against the delay condonation petition of the Appellants stating that no sufficient cause has been shown by the Appellants to justify delayed filing of this Appeal and therefore, the same should be rejected.
The primarily responsibility of delayed filing of this Appeal, it seems, has been imputed to an employee, who allegedly did not brief the Appellant No. 1 about the passing of impugned order in time. However, for some obscure reasons, the Appellants have not disclosed the antecedents of the concerned employee nor any confessionary statement to this effect is furnished on record. We afraid, unsubstantiated claim does not prove anything.
Another alibi cited is alleged infirm condition of the Appellant No. 1 for two long months. Here too, we find that the Appellants have not furnished any medical document to support such contention. Significant here to note that the Appellant No. 1 did not feel any discomfort while discharging his professional duties at Andaman for two long months (in between March, 2016 and May, 2016), but on his return from Andaman, he became bed-ridden. Further, it appears that the Appellant No. 1 happens to be one of the Directors of the Appellant Company. Therefore, we fail to understand as to why other Directors of the Company did not stepped into his shoes to fill up the vacuum.
Another intriguing fact that has come to our notice is that on one hand it is stated that the Appellant, on his return from Andaman in the last week of May, 2016, enquired about the complaint case as the concerned employee did not keep him in the loop about the impugned order. On the other, it appears from the record that application for certified copy of impugned order was made by the Appellants on 25-04-2016. If the concerned employee indeed did not inform the Appellants about passing of impugned order, as claimed by the Appellants, then question is bound to be raised, who made application for certified copy of the impugned order before the Ld. District Forum and receive the same on 25-04-2016. There is, thus, reason to believe that the Appellant has not approached this Commission with clean hands.
The Hon'ble Apex Court through its catena of judgments have articulates its views that justice must be swift, sure and seen to be done or it is not justice at all. In fact, it seems that the Consumer Protection Act been enacted with an objective of imparting justice to the grievance of aggrieved consumers in an expeditious manner. Therefore, we cannot be lax with belated and meritless Appeals. Sec. 15 of the 1986 Act sets a time limit of 30 days for filing an Appeal. Although the Act empowers the Appellate Forum to entertain Appeals being filed beyond this threshold limit, there is a rider that 'sufficient cause' must be shown to justify delayed filing which is very much missing here.
In fact, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Oil & Natural Gas Corporation v. Gujarat Energy Transmission Corpn. Ltd. & Ors. in Civil Appeal No. 1315 of 2010 observed that, "If the delay is statutorily not condonable, the delay cannot be condoned".
On overall scrutiny of the impugned order, we do not find any 'sufficient ground' being assigned by the Appellants to justify 147 days delay (excluding statutory period of limitation) in filing this Appeal. As such, the same cannot be allowed. Accordingly, the Appeal stands dismissed being barred by limitation. [HON'BLE MR. SHYAMAL GUPTA] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MR. UTPAL KUMAR BHATTACHARYA] MEMBER