National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Tapsi Das & 7 Ors. vs Dhruda Sen & Anr. on 21 June, 2017
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI FIRST APPEAL NO. 117 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 07/12/2016 in Complaint No. 450/2015 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. TAPSI DAS & 7 ORS. PROPRIETRESS OF M/S. WREAK INTERNATIONAL, 35, DEB LANE, P.S. ENTALLY, KOLKATA-700014 2. BABIRIKA PEREIRA DUGHTERS OF LATE PANCHANAN ADHYA, 1, GARDEN LANE, P.S. TALTALA, KOLKATA-700014 3. SAGARIKA GHOSH SUAGHTER OF LATE PANCHANAN ADHYA, 1 GARDEN LANE, P.S. TALTALA, KOLKATA-700014 4. SANJAY ADHYA, SON OF LATE PANCHANAN ADHYA, 1 GARDEN LANE, P.S. TALTALA, KOLKATA-700014 5. NARAYAN ADHYA 43, HARA KUMAR TAGORE SQUARE, P.S. TALTALA, KOLKATA-700014 6. GOURI CHARAN ADHYA 43, HARA KUMAR TAGORE SQUARE, P.S. TALTALA, KOLKATA-700014 7. DEBNATH ADHYA 43, HARA KUMAR TAGORE SQUARE, P.S. TALTALA, KOLKATA-700014 8. JAGDISH ADHYA 43, HARA KUMAR TAGORE SQUARE, P.S. TALTALA, KOLKATA-700014 ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. DHRUDA SEN & ANR. 46/40, SURENDRA NATH BANERJEE ROAD, TALTALA, KOLKATA-700014 2. PASUPATI SINGH 79/18/2, A.J.C. BOSE ROAD, KOLKATA- ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE,PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MRS. REKHA GUPTA,MEMBER For the Appellant : Mr. Shankar Mukhopadhyay, Advocate For the Respondent : For the Respondent No.1 : Mr. Bimlendu Chakraborty, Advocate For the Respondent No.2 : Mr. Goutam Routh, Advocate Dated : 21 Jun 2017 ORDER Counsel for the appellants as well as respondent No.2 have tendered their Vakalatnamas, which are taken on record.
2. Respondent No.1 filed a consumer complaint against the appellants as also respondent No.2 alleging deficiency in service on their part in respect of the builder buyer agreement executed between the parties in respect of residential flat. The appellants were served with the notice under Section 13 (2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. They, however, failed to file written statement within the stipulated period of limitation i.e. 45 days including 15 days extension which could be given by the Consumer Fora. Consequently, the State Commission, West Bengal vide order dated 22.6.2016 relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. SLP (C) No.2833 of 2014 & SLP (C) Nos.11257-11258 of 2014 decided on 4.12.2015, closed the right of the appellants/opposite parties to file written statement and decided to proceed ex-parte against the opposite parties.
3. Being aggrieved of the order of the State Commission, the appellants moved MA/1000/2016 seeking recall of the order dated 22.6.2016. The application, however, was rejected by the State Commission vide order dated 7.12.2016 observing that the State Commission has no power to review its own order. This has led to filing of the revision petition.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant/respondent No.1 in all fairness has submitted that although the period of limitation for filing of written statement by the appellants/opposite parties has expired, the respondent/complainant in interest of justice has no objection if the impugned orders are set aside and the appellants are permitted to file their written statements in response to the complaint, subject to the cost for unnecessary delay caused.
5. In the facts and circumstances of the case and the concession given at the bar by the complainant, we set aside the impugned orders, subject to cost of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant for the unnecessary cost. It is submitted that the written statement has already been placed in the record of the State Commission. The State Commission shall officially take the written statement on record and decide the case expeditiously in accordance with law.
6. Parties to appear before the State Commission on 28.6.2017 by which date the appellants shall pay the cost imposed, to the complainant.
7. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellants submits that he is not in a position to pay the cost. Therefore, he seeks to withdraw the appeal.
8. In view of the above, appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.
......................J AJIT BHARIHOKE PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... REKHA GUPTA MEMBER