State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Dr. K. N. Tripathi vs Minor Tusi Roy on 26 November, 2013
DRAFT STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION WEST BENGAL 11A, MIRZA GHALIB STREET KOLKATA 700 087 S.C. CASE NO.FA/333/2013 (Arising out of order dated 30/01/09 in Case No.CC/145/2003 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Berhampore, Murshidabad) DATE OF FILING:25/03/13 DATE OF FINAL ORDER:26/11/13 APPELLANT : Dr. K. N. Tripathi Srusutnagar District-Darjeeling Also residing at Seba Chikitsaloy P.O. & P.S. Kandi B.S. Road, Tatultala District-Murshidabad RESPONDENT : Minor Tusi Roy Represented by Her father & guardian Sri Pratap Kumar Roy S/o-Sudhir Chanda Roy Vill. Kalyanpur P.O. & P.S. Kandi District-Murshidabad BEFORE : HONBLE JUSTICE : Sri Kalidas Mukherjee President HONBLE MEMBER : Smt. M. Roy FOR THE APPELLANT : Mr. Abhik Das Ld. Advocate Mrs Koyeli Mukhopadhyay Ld. Advocate FOR THE RESPONDENT : Mr. Barun Prasad Ld. Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ : O R D E R :
HONBLE JUSTICE SRI KALIDAS MUKHERJEE, PRESIDENT This order relates to the application for condonation of delay of 1482 days in filing this appeal.
It has been stated in the petition for condonation of delay that the appellant is a doctor by profession and after retirement he shifted to Varanasi permanently which is his native place. The appellant had entrusted Late Kishalay Sengupta, Ld. Advocate in the proceedings before the Learned District Forum, but lost his contact number.
Subsequently, he came to learn that the Ld. Advocate had expired and, as such, he could not know the outcome of the complaint. It has been stated that he had a belief that the complaint had been dismissed as the patient was stable for more than 14 days. It has further been stated that the appellant had suffered fracture of hip bone (right) due to sudden fall on road and was operated upon. The appellant thereafter was informed by the Police Authority in connection with the execution case bearing no.EA 16 of 2009 pending before the Learned District Forum, Murshidabad. The appellant thereafter got the certified copy and engaged another Ld. Advocate in Kolkata and filed this appeal. There was no intentional laches on the part of the appellant.
It has been submitted by the Learned Counsel for the appellant that the appellant had serious illness and as his Ld. Advocate had expired he could not know the result of the complaint case. It is submitted that the delay was not intentional and in the interest of justice the case should be heard on merits.
The Learned Counsel for the respondent has opposed the petition for condonation of delay and submitted that as per order no.39 dated 15/05/07 passed by the Learned District Forum it was submitted by the Ld. Advocate before the Learned District Forum that the OP Dr. K. N. Tripathi had expired and report was called for from the concerned P.S. It has further been submitted that the complainant had filed one application under the RTI Act and the Directorate of Medical Education, Government of West Bengal vide letter dated 15/03/12 supplied the address of the appellant herein and thereafter the respondent proceeded with the execution case. The Learned Counsel has referred to the decisions reported in V (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) [Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority]; 2013 (2) CPR 493 (NC) [Koganti Atchyuta Rao & Anr. Vs. Koganti Vineeth].
We have heard the submission made by both sides and perused the papers on record. It has been held by the Honble Apex Court in the case of Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (supra) as follows:
. It is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if this Court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the consumer Foras..
Admittedly, the appellant herein entered appearance by engaging an Advocate in the Learned District Forum. It also appears from the order no.39 dated 15/05/07 passed by the Learned District Forum that it was submitted by the Ld. Advocate of the OP that the OP had expired and the Learned District Forum called for a report from the concerned P.S. as to whether Dr. Tripathi was alive or not. Upon an application filed by the respondent/complainant under the RTI Act, the Directorate of Medical Education, Government of West Bengal informed the complainant of the address of Dr. Tripathi as appearing from the service book. The Learned District Forum allowed the complaint with certain directions vide judgment dated 30/01/09. It is, therefore, clear that there was long inaction on the part of the appellant herein.
In the case of Koganti Atchyuta Rao & Anr. Vs. Koganti Vineeth (supra) it has been held by the Hon'ble National Commission that the object of expeditious disposal of consumer dispute would get defeat if Court was to entertain the highly belated petitions. It has further been observed in the said case that there was no fault with District Forum having proceeded ex parte against petitioners after resorting to substituted service of notice by publication in newspapers. The Learned Counsel for the respondent has submitted that when the report of the concerned P.S. was not submitted before the Learned District Forum, a revisional application was preferred and thereafter the paper publication was made.
It is contended by the Learned Counsel for the appellant that after getting the address of the appellant herein of his native place a notice was sent and when the warrant of arrest was issued the appeal has been filed.
Having heard the submission made by both sides and on perusal of the papers on record, we are of the considered view that the inordinate delay of 1482 days has not been sufficiently explained and there is no merit in the petition for condonation of delay which is liable to be rejected.
The petition for condonation of delay is rejected.
Consequently, the appeal being time barred also stands dismissed.
MEMBER(L) PRESIDENT