State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Fund Manager, Uti Infrastructure ... vs Sri Jyotsnamoy Chakraborty on 29 July, 2022
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry BEFORE THE ASSAM STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION GUWAHATI Miscellaneous Application No. MA/26/2018 ( Date of Filing : 21 Feb 2018 ) In First Appeal No. A/15/2018 1. The Fund Manager, UTI Infrastructure Fund UTI Mutual Fund, UTI Towers, GN Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai, PIN- 400051 Maharastra 2. M/s Karvy Computershare Pvt. Ltd., Registrar and Transfer Agent for UTI Mutual Fund 21, Avenue-4, Street No. 1, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, PIN-500034 Telengana 3. The Chief Manager, UTI Office, Silchar N. N. Dutta Road, Silchar, P.O.-Silchar, PIN-788001 Cachar Assam ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Sri Jyotsnamoy Chakraborty S/o Late Durgesh Chandra, Pranabananda Lane, Satsang Ashram Road, P.O.-Silchar, PIN-788001 Cachar Assam 2. Smti Uma Roy Choudhury (ARN-12480), Broker/Dealer, UTI Office, Silchar N. N. Dutta Road, Silchar, P.O.-Silchar, PIN-788001 Cachar Assam ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Prasanta Kumar Deka PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. Sushil Kumar Sarma MEMBER HON'BLE MR. Sisir Kr Baruah MEMBER PRESENT: Mr. C. Sarma,Advocate, Proxy for Mr. S. R. Gogoi, Advocate for for the Appellant 1 Mr. K. Biswakarma,Advocate, for Mr. S. P. Choudhury, Advocate for the Respondent 1 Dated : 29 Jul 2022 Final Order / Judgement
Heard Mr. C. Sarma, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. K. Biswakarma, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the opposite party No. 1.
This is an application for condonation of 145 days in preferring the connected appeal against the judgment and order dated 08-09-2017 passed by the learned District Commission, Cachar in Con. Case No. 36/2012.
As submitted by Mr. Sarma, the judgment and order was passed on 08-09-2017 and the conducting counsel at Silchar duly informed the authorized representative of the applicant about the said judgment dated 08-09-2017. It was requested to the said authorized representative by the said counsel to collect the certified copy of the judgment from his chamber. The authorized representative of the applicant was on leave for about 23 days and he assured that he would collect the certified copy of the judgment after joining his duty. In the midst of his leave, the authorized representative, as narrated in the application, forgot to collect the certified copy from the chamber of the learned conducting counsel for the applicant. On 11-11-2017, while the said representative visited the chamber of the counsel at Silchar for some other matters, it was the learned counsel who reminded him about the said judgment dated 08-09-2017. Then he recollected his conversation with the counsel on 12-09-2017 and apologized for his mistake and collected the certified copy of the judgment. Thereafter, he informed his senior official at Guwahati and sent a copy to the said official. On 14-11-2017, the said judgment was transmitted to the Head Office at Hyderabad for necessary instruction. On 27-12-2017, the Deputy Manager of the applicant at Guwahati was directed to do the needful for filing appeal but as there was no local counsel of the applicant at Guwahati, as such, internal approvals from the management to appoint counsel at Guwahati had been taken and after taking due approval, on 17-01-2018 counsel Mr. H. Baruah was authorized to take necessary steps for filing appeal before this Commission. Then again Mr. Baruah could not file the appeal as he was shifting his chamber on 20-1-2018. After complete shifting of the chamber, he filed the appeal on 21-02-2018 and as a consequence, there was delay of 145 days. Mr. Sarma projected that there was no negligence on the part of the applicant rather, due to inadvertent mistake on the part of the authorized representative of the applicant, the said delay was caused and for the said representative, the applicant should not suffer. For the said reasons, Mr. Sarma sought for condoning the delay.
Mr. Biswakarma referring to his written objection objected to the submission of Mr. Sarma that the grounds are bonafide and sufficient to condone the delay. Referring to the statement made in the application, Mr. Biswakarma submits that there was clear negligence on the part of the authorised representative, inasmuch as, stated he visited the chamber of the counsel at Silchar not with an entent to collect the certified copy of the judgment but for other matter and he was reminded by the counsel only about the certified copy of the judgment. The said statement itself is sufficient that there was negligence on the part of the official of the applicant as nothing has been stated that there was action initiated against the said authorized representative. For the same, if the delay is condoned, the opposite party would be prejudiced which cannot be compensated. Accordingly, Mr. Biswakarma sought for dismissal of the application.
We have given due consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel. The applicant itself is well equipped of competent Law Officials who are aware of the consequences of the law of limitation. Under such circumstances, apparent negligence on the part of the official of the applicant cannot be considered to be bonafide in a case wherein the said applicant was duly represented by the learned counsel in the proceeding before the leaned Commission below. The legal department is presumed to have knowledge of the judgment impugned in the connected appeal and as such the intentional delay cannot be accepted as bonafide on the face of the prejudice that may be caused to the opposite party in the event the delay of 145 days is condoned. Accordingly, we are not inclined to condone the delay of 145 days after we have come to the conclusion that there was apparent negligence on the part of the official of the applicant who was the authorized representative while conducting the proceeding before the learned Commission below at Cachar.
In view of the same, this delay condonation petition stands dismissed.
[HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Prasanta Kumar Deka] PRESIDENT [HON'BLE MR. Sushil Kumar Sarma] MEMBER [HON'BLE MR. Sisir Kr Baruah] MEMBER