Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Rinku Chatterjee vs Dr. Sushmita Roy Chowdhury on 3 December, 2018

  	 Cause Title/Judgement-Entry 	    	       STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION  WEST BENGAL  11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087             Miscellaneous Application No. MA/143/2018  ( Date of Filing : 14 Nov 2018 )  In  Revision Petition No. RP/269/2017             1. Rinku Chatterjee  Kol. ...........Appellant(s)   Versus      1. Dr. Sushmita Roy Chowdhury  Kol. ...........Respondent(s)       	    BEFORE:      HON'BLE MR. SHYAMAL GUPTA PRESIDING MEMBER    HON'BLE MR. UTPAL KUMAR BHATTACHARYA MEMBER          For the Appellant: Mr. P.Majumder, Mr. P.Banerjee, Ms. P.Mukherjee, Advocate    For the Respondent:    Dated : 03 Dec 2018    	     Final Order / Judgement    

MA/143/2018 is put up and taken up for consideration.

By such petition, it is contended that, while deciding the fate of the Revision Petition bearing no. RP/269/2017, yet this Commission observed that Consumer Fora is not the appropriate place to agitate the dispute being raised by the petitioner, the complaint case was inadvertently dismissed on limitation ground.  Accordingly, the petitioner prayed for necessary correction of the typographical error that has inadvertently crept in.

On due consideration of everything, it does seem to us that a typographical error did occur while writing the operative part of the impugned order.  Indeed, the Bench was unanimous in its view that the complaint case was not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act.  Accordingly, the case should have been dismissed for 'want of jurisdiction' instead of 'limitation' ground as inadvertently written in the impugned order. 

It being nothing but an unintentional typographical error, the same is hereby rectified as under:

"Hence, O R D E R E D The Revision stands allowed on contest against the Respondent No. 1/Complainant.  The impugned order is hereby set aside.  Consequent thereto, the complaint case stands dismissed for want of jurisdiction.  Respondent No. 1/Complainant, however, is accorded due liberty to approach the competent Court of Law for the purpose of redressal of her grievance, if she desires so.  In that case, she can claim the benefit of Sec. 14 of the Limitation Act to exclude the period spent in pursuing the proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 so far while computing the period of limitation prescribed for such a case [Laxmi Engineering Works v. P.S.G. Industrial Institute, 1995 (3) SCC 583 relied upon]."

MA, accordingly, stands allowed.     [HON'BLE MR. SHYAMAL GUPTA] PRESIDING MEMBER   [HON'BLE MR. UTPAL KUMAR BHATTACHARYA] MEMBER