State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sri Anjan Kanto Banerjee vs M/S. Schindler India Pvt. Ltd. on 25 May, 2018
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION WEST BENGAL 11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087 First Appeal No. A/1265/2017 ( Date of Filing : 05 Dec 2017 ) (Arisen out of Order Dated 31/03/2017 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/166/2015 of District Kolkata-I(North)) 1. Sri Anjan Kanto Banerjee P-23/3, Raj Krishna Chatterjee Road, Kolkata -42. 2. Sunil Singh, Authorised Signatory, Enkon Gr. of Hotels Pvt. Ltd. 32, Pramatha Chowdhuri Sarani, Kolkata - 700 053. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. M/s. Schindler India Pvt. Ltd. Matrix Tower, DN - 24, 2nd Floor, Sector -V, Kolkata -91. 2. Union Bank of India New Alipore Br., P.S. - New Alipore, Kolkata - 700 053. ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. SHYAMAL GUPTA PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. UTPAL KUMAR BHATTACHARYA MEMBER For the Appellant: Mr. Prasanta Banerjee, Advocate For the Respondent: Ms. Keka Chakraborty., Advocate Dated : 25 May 2018 Final Order / Judgement Order No. 4 date: 25-05-2018 Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member
Today is fixed for passing order in respect of the delay condonation petition submitted by the Appellants.
Appellant's case, as stated in the petition under consideration, is that, neither they received free copy of the impugned order from the Ld. District Forum as per rule nor their Ld. Advocate intimated anything about the same. Therefore, they were totally in the dark about the fate of the instant complaint case for long. When representative of the Appellants visited the office of the Ld. District Forum, they came to know that final order in the matter had been passed long ago. Accordingly, the Appellants got in touch with the Ld. Advocate for his opinion, who advised them to move an Appeal. The Appellants then asked the concerned Ld. Advocate to take necessary steps to file an Appeal. As the Ld. Advocate could not prepare the draft Memo of Appeal even after more than 2 weeks owing to his busy schedule, he was asked to return the papers. After getting the case related papers from him, Appellants approached their present Ld. Advocate, who prepared the Memorandum of Appeal hurriedly and thereafter, filed this Appeal.
Notice was duly served upon both the Respondents. However, only the Respondent No. 1 remained present at the time of hearing through its Ld. Advocate. Therefore, we heard the Ld. Advocates of the Appellants and Respondent No. 1 in the matter and perused the documents on record.
On going through the delay condonation petition, we find that, no day-to-day explanation is given by the Appellants, but they have charted out only a sketchy sequence of events whereby, they have blamed everyone except themselves for the inordinate delay of 217 days (excluding the statutory period of limitation) in filing this Appeal.
Since nowadays all orders, including final orders, are uploaded in the Confonet website, gone are the days when one had to fully rely upon the wherewithal of the Ld. Advocates to know the fate of the cases. While at the click of a mouse, one can access the orders passed in a proceeding, it is futile to find fault with others for non-receipt of the copy of final order in time.
We also find it quite perplexing that despite their previous bitter experience, the Appellants refused to learn any lesson and again roped in the same Advocate for moving the Appeal and in the process wasted considerable time as allegedly the said Advocate did not prepare the draft Memo of Appeal because of his pre-occupation.
If an Advocate neglects in discharging his professional duties, the aggrieved consumer is free to draw appropriate legal proceedings against him. There is nothing on record to show that the Appellants contemplated any such action against the Ld. Advocate concerned.
Overall, we do not come across any substance in the alibis put forth by the Appellants behind non-filing of this Appeal in time.
That apart, on minute scrutiny of the documents on record, we find that there was no substance in the complaint case at all. It appears that, in terms of the quotation issued by the Respondent No. 1, it reserved the right to take back all defective parts of the elevator. Since in acceptance of said quotation, the Appellants entrusted the job of repairing the elevator upon the Respondent No. 1, there was no point crying foul over non-return of the defective parts of the elevator by the Respondent No. 1. The Ld. District Forum accurately decided the fate of the complaint case. Thus, we find that the present Appeal is devoid of any merit.
In any case, since the Appellants miserably failed to spell out 'sufficient cause' behind non-filing of this Appeal in time, we reject this petition straightway. Consequent thereof, the Appeal stands dismissed being barred by limitation. [HON'BLE MR. SHYAMAL GUPTA] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MR. UTPAL KUMAR BHATTACHARYA] MEMBER