State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Dr. Sunil Kr. Brahmachari vs Arun Kr. Das & Others on 5 February, 2021
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION WEST BENGAL 11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087 First Appeal No. A/547/2019 ( Date of Filing : 24 Jul 2019 ) (Arisen out of Order Dated 28/07/2015 in Case No. CC/497/2014 of District Kolkata-II(Central)) 1. Dr. Sunil Kr. Brahmachari 242/3B, A.P.C. Road, Nandan Aprt., P.S.- Burtolla, Kolkata - 700 004. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Arun Kr. Das & Others 7/4, D.P.P. Road, Naktala, P.S. Netaji Nagar, Kolkata -700 047. 2. Arindam Das 7/4, D.P.P. Road, Naktala, P.S. Netaji Nagar, Kolkata -700 047. 3. M/s. Amazon Capital Ltd. Infinity Infotech Parks, Tower-1, 2nd Floor, Plot no.A3, Block-GP, Sector-V, Salt Lake, Kolkata -700 091. 4. Dilip Kr. Gangopadhyay BG-36, Sector-II, Salt Lake City, P.S. Bidhan Nagar, Pin - 700 091. 5. Manigrib Bag AH-208, Sector-II, Salt Lake City, P.S. Bidhan Nagar, Pin - 700 091. 6. Gargi Biswas 9/5A, East Mall Road, Dum Dum, P.S. Dum Dum, Kolkata -700 080. 7. Debabrata Ghosh Flat no. C-302, Ramvatika, 201, N.S.C. Bose Road, P.S. Netaji Nagar, Kolkata -700 040. 8. Jaydeb Garai DL-202, Sector-II, Salt Lake City, P.S. Bidhan Nagar, Pin - 700 091. ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. SHYAMAL GUPTA PRESIDING MEMBER PRESENT: Auth.Person, Advocate for the Appellant 1 Mr. K. Bhattacharya(autho person), Advocate for the Respondent 1 Mr. K. Bhattacharya(autho person), Advocate for the Respondent 1 Ms. Sohini Bhattacharjee, Advocate for the Respondent 1 Ms. Sohini Bhattacharjee, Advocate for the Respondent 1 Dated : 05 Feb 2021 Final Order / Judgement
Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member This Appeal is preferred by one Dr. Sunil Kumar Brahmachari against the Order dated 28-07-2015, passed by the Ld. District Commission, Kolkata II (Central) in CC/497/2014.
The grievance of the Appellant is that he had been unnecessarily implicated in the above mentioned complaint case. In point of fact, according to the Appellant, he has never been associated with M/s Amazan Capital Ltd. in any capacity whatsoever. So, the Appellant prayed for exonerating him of all the liabilities in the matter.
Before I deal with the issue, let me put the record straight.
Following initiation of complaint proceedings, as per law, due Notice was served upon the Appellant. However, for the reasons best known to him, the Appellant chose to remain conspicuous by his absence during the entire proceedings. As a result, decree was passed against the Appellant together with others. Notwithstanding the present Appeal is filed with a whooping delay of 1,427 days (excluding the statutory limitation period of 30 days), in his delay condonation petition, the Appellant has refrained from uttering a single word justifying his inaction while the complaint proceedings was going on.
I cannot overlook the fact that the Respondent No. 1, a cancer patient himself, invested his hard earned honest penny in the Respondent No. 2 company. However, as the said company did not return his money, the Respondent No. 1 braving all his sufferings, initiated due legal proceedings in order to get justice in the matter.
If the Appellant was indeed innocent, as proclaimed by him, he could turn up before the Ld. District Commission and made his position clear by placing relevant documents in support of his contention. Simply on account of shocking whimsical attitude of the Appellant, the sufferings of the Respondent No. 1 compounded manifold. I cannot lose sight of this fact.
Over belated filing of the present Appeal, it was obligatory on the part of the Appellant to justify each day delay satisfactorily. As I find, no proper explanation is there anywhere in the delay condonation petition of the Appellant regarding his complete no-show before the Ld. District Commission while the complaint proceedings was going on. Thus, while the primary responsibility of filing a belated Appeal is not discharged, I think, it would be in the fitness of things to dismiss this Appeal with a cost of Rs. 10,000/- being payable to the Respondent No. 1 by the Appellant within 45 days from the date of this order. [HON'BLE MR. SHYAMAL GUPTA] PRESIDING MEMBER