State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Cox & Kings Ltd. vs Smt. Shakuntala Datta on 14 February, 2014
DRAFT STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION WEST BENGAL 11A, MIRZA GHALIB STREET KOLKATA 700 087 S.C. CASE NO.FA/1240/2013 (Arising out of order dated 30/08/13 in Case No.CC/237/2012 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata, Unit-I) DATE OF FILING:20/11/13 DATE OF FINAL ORDER:14/02/14 APPELLANT : Cox & Kings Ltd. Registered Office at Turner Morrison Building 16, Bank Street, Fort Mumbai-400 001 Branch Office at 8, Acharya Jagadish Chandra Bose Road 8th Floor, P.S. Park Street Kolkata-700 017 And also at 6, Little Russel Street Ground Floor, Kankaria Estate P.S. Shakespeare Sarani Kolkata-700 071 RESPONDENT : Smt. Shakuntala Datta 359, Jodhpur Park P.S. Lake Kolkata-700 068 BEFORE : HONBLE JUSTICE : Sri Kalidas Mukherjee President HONBLE MEMBER : Smt. M. Roy HONBLE MEMBER : Sri Tarapada Gangopadhyay FOR THE APPELLANT : Ms. Sharmishtha Laha Ld. Advocate FOR THE RESPONDENT : Ms. Tanusree Dhar 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 50 days in filing this appeal u/s 15 of the C. P. Act against the judgment and order dated 30/08/13 passed by the Learned District Forum, Kolkata, Unit-I in CC 237 of 2012.
It has been stated in the petition for condonation of delay that on 01/08/13 the hearing was concluded and the Learned District Forum fixed a date for delivery of judgment. But no judgment was delivered on the date fixed and thereafter the Ld. Advocate of the Appellant visited the office of the Learned District Forum time to time to know the date of delivery of judgment. It was only on 21st September, 2013 while surfing the official website of the Learned District Forum the Ld. Advocate of the Appellant learnt about the passing of the impugned judgment and order. Thereafter on 23/09/13 certified copy was applied for and it was obtained. The certified copy of the impugned judgment was sent to the Ld. Advocate. It was sent to the higher authority to decide whether the order would be complied with or necessary appeal would be preferred. As it was the period on the eve of puja vacation the Appellant Company could not convey its opinion regarding the matter of filing appeal. On 21/10/13 after reopening the Appellant told its Ld. Advocate to take steps on its behalf in this regard. On 22nd October, 2013 the Ld. Advocate advised to prefer an appeal and requested the Appellant to provide the necessary papers and documents for drafting the Memo of Appeal. Thereafter in due course the appeal was filed on 20/11/13.
The Learned Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that due to procedural delay the appeal could not be filed within time and the delay was not intentional.
The Learned Counsel for the Respondent has opposed the petition for condonation of delay.
We have heard the submission made by both sides. It appears that the complaint case was allowed on contest by the Learned District Forum. The judgment was delivered on 30/08/13. The free copy was issued on 09/09/13. Thereafter on 23/09/13 the certified copy was applied for and on the same date it was delivered. The appeal was filed on 20/11/13.
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 considered view that the delay of 50 days in filing this appeal has not been sufficiently explained. There is no merit in the application for condonation of delay.
The petition for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal being time barred also stands dismissed.
MEMBER(TG) MEMBER(L) PRESIDENT