State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Dr. Sumantra Gupta vs Sri Dipak Ghosh on 5 March, 2014
DRAFT
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION
WEST
BENGAL
11A, MIRZA GHALIB STREET
KOLKATA 700 087
S.C. CASE NO.FA/937/2013
(Arising out of order dated 24/01/13 in
Case No.CC/144/2012 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Alipore,
South 24-Parganas)
DATE OF FILING:26/08/13 DATE OF FINAL ORDER:05/03/14
APPELLANT : Dr. Sumantra Gupta
S/o-Dr. Saibal Gupta
Director of
Vinayaka Consultancy Pvt. Ltd.
59, Jodhpur Garden
P.S. Lake,
Kolkata-700 045
At present residing at
D/08/14, Ashabori
Uttarayan Complex
P.O. Matigara, Dist. Darjeeling
RESPONDENTS : 1) Sri Dipak Ghosh
S/o-Late Jiban Krishna Ghosh
97, Shanti Pally
Rajdanga, P.O. East Kolkata
Township Project, P.S. Kasba
Kolkata-700 107
2) Sri Debiprasad Dutta
S/o-Ghanashyam Dutta
C/o-Monorama Memorial Institute of
Education
165, Ananda Pally
P.O. & P.S. Jadavpur
Kolkata-700 032
3) Sri Ambika Prasad Dutta
S/o-Ghanashyam Dutta
C/o-Monorama Memorial Institute of
Education
165, Ananda Pally
P.O. & P.S. Jadavpur
Kolkata-700 032
4) Sri Ghanashyam Dutta
C/o-Tentula Memorial Welfare Society
Block-Gopiballavpur
P.O. & Vill. Tentula
District-Midnapur (P)
PIN-721 517
5) Monorama Memorial Institute of
Education
165, Ananda Pally
P.O. & P.S. Jadavpur
Kolkata-700 032
BEFORE : HONBLE
JUSTICE : Sri Kalidas Mukherjee
President
HONBLE
MEMBER : Smt. M. Roy
HONBLE
MEMBER : Sri Tarapada Gangopadhyay
FOR THE APPELLANT : Mr. Barun Prasad
Ld.
Advocate
Mr.
Subrata Mondal
Ld.
Advocate
FOR THE RESPONDENTS : In
person (Respondent No.1)
Mr. Niladri
Roy
Ld.
Advocate
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: O R D E R :
HONBLE JUSTICE SRI KALIDAS MUKHERJEE, PRESIDENT This order relates to hearing on the petition for condonation of delay of 181 days in filing this appeal.
It has been stated in the petition for condonation of delay that no notice was served upon the Appellant herein in the complaint case. The Learned District Forum did not send the copy of order to the Appellant. The Appellant had no knowledge about the order impugned and it was only after the receipt of notice in connection with execution case no.46 of 2013 the Appellant came to learn about the judgment passed in the complaint case. Thereafter the certified copy of the order was obtained and the appeal has been filed and in the mean time the delay of 181 days occurred.
It has been submitted by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant that the complaint case was allowed ex parte against OP No.4/Appellant herein and no notice was served upon the Appellant in the complaint case before the Learned District Forum.
The Respondent No.1/Complainant opposed the petition for condonation of delay and submitted that the notice was duly served upon OP No.4/Appellant herein before the Learned District Forum and the Forum was justified in passing the impugned judgment. It is submitted that there is no ground to condone the delay and the appeal should be dismissed.
The Learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 5 did not raise any objection as to the petition for condonation of delay and submitted that the delay may be condoned.
We have heard the submission made by both sides and examined the papers on record. It appears from the annexures to the written objection filed by the Respondent No.1 that the notice was served upon Appellant herein in the complaint case as the report was intimation served unclaimed. Since the OP No.4 did not contest the case, the Learned District Forum allowed the case ex parte against OP No.4. The judgment was delivered on 24/01/13. On 30/07/13 the certified copy was applied for and on the same date it was delivered. It has been observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority reported in IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) 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.
On perusal of the papers on record and having regard to the submission made by both sides, we are of the view that inordinate delay of 181 days in filing this appeal has not been sufficiently explained.
The petition for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal being time barred also stands dismissed.
MEMBER(TG) MEMBER(L) PRESIDENT