National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Pallab Mohan Chakraborti vs Debayan Ganguly on 22 February, 2022
Author: R.K. Agrawal
Bench: R.K. Agrawal
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 2447 OF 2018 (Against the Order dated 26/07/2018 in Appeal No. 67/2018 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. PALLAB MOHAN CHAKRABORTI S/O. LT. BISWANATH CHAKRABORTI R/O. 155, NETAJI SUBHAS AVENUE, POST OFFICE AND POLICE STATION SERAMPORE, DISTRICT-HOOGHLY WEST BENGAL-712201 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. DEBAYAN GANGULY S/O. MR. MALAY KUMAR GANGULY, R/O. MRS. ALO RAY 3RD FLOOR, UMAKANTA SEN LANE POST OFFICE DUM DUM POLICE STATION COSSIPUR KOLKATA-700030 WEST BENGAL ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. AGRAWAL,PRESIDENT HON'BLE DR. S.M. KANTIKAR,MEMBER For the Petitioner : Petitioner in Person For the Respondent : Ms. Pooja Shukla, Advocate Mr. Surojit Gangopadhyay, Advocate Ms. Chitralekha Das, Advocate Dated : 22 Feb 2022 ORDER R.K. AGRAWAL, J., PRESIDENT The present Revision Petition has been filed by the Original Complainant under Section 19 read with Section 21(a)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, "the Act"), against the Order dated 26.07.2018, passed by the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as "the State Commission") in Revision Petition No. RP/67/2018. By the Impugned Order, the State Commission has rejected the Application, seeking condonation of delay of 120 days in filing the Revision Petition, and consequently summarily dismissed the Revision Petition, preferred before it by the Petitioner herein. The Impugned Order reads as under:
"Petitioner/revisionist is found absent despite second call. OP is represented through the Ld. Advocate. In accordance with the previous order, record is taken up for hearing the application filed by the revisionist for condonation of delay whereby the revisionist has made a prayer for condonation of delay in preferring the instant revision petition within the period of limitation. On behalf of OP, a written objection against the said application has been filed.
Having heard the Ld. Advocate for the OP and on perusal of materials on record, it would reveal that the revisionist herein being complainant lodged a complaint under Section 12 of the /Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the DCDRF, Hooghly at Chinsurah being CC/23/2017.
During the pendency of the proceeding, complainant files a petition with prayer for time for an adjournment as he moved in the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta. However, no reference has been made before the Ld. District Forum to that effect.
During pendency of the proceeding, by Order No.08 dated 20.09.2017, the Ld. District Forum fixed a date for filing the copy of order of Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta as the Complainant/revisionist took a plea that he moved at Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta.
Now, challenging the said order, the instant revision petition has been filed. However, in the process, there has been total delay of 120 days in filing the appeal.
Ld. Advocate for the OP drawing my attention to the application for condonation of delay has submitted that the revisionist has failed to advance any reasonable cause in filing the revision petition within the period of limitation. On perusal of Paragraph Nos. 3 & 4 of the application for condonation of delay, I am in agreement with the Ld. Advocate for the OP that the revisionist has totally failed to advance any cogent reason for delay in non-filing the revision petition within the period of limitation. In other words, the revisionist has totally failed to constitute any ground for the delay of 120 days.
In view of the above, the application of delay is, thus, rejected.
Consequently, the revision petition is summarily dismissed."
2. The Revision Petition before the State Commission had been filed by the Petitioner herein against the Interlocutory Order dated 20.09.2017, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hooghly at Chinsurah (hereinafter referred to as "the District Commission") in Complaint Case No. CC/23/2017, which had been filed by the Petitioner herein, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party/Respondent herein and accordingly praying for certain reliefs. The said Interlocutory Order dated 20.09.2017 passed by the District Commission reads as under:
"Complainant filed a petition praying time for adjournment today as a complaint has filed before High Court at Kolkata and listed to be heard on 20.09.2017. But no reference filed. Prayer for time is allowed.
OP filed an objection u-xiii - R-6 of CPC copy annexed.
OP also filed W/V, copy annexed, W/V is accepted.
Fix 15.12.17 for hearing the petition u/s 151 CPC and O-XIII R-6 of CPC and filing the order of Hon'ble High Court at Kolkata."
3. Heard Mr. Pallab Mohan Chakraborti, the Petitioner herein, who is appearing in person, as also Ms. Pooja, Shukla, learned Counsel for the Respondent, and perused the material available on record.
4. As the issue involved in the matter is as to whether the State Commission was justified in declining to condone the delay of 120 days in filing the Revision Petition before it or not, we do not propose to go into the merits of the matter and proceed to examine the explanation given by the Petitioner herein therefor. The explanation given in Paragraphs-2 to 4 of the Application, seeking condonation of delay of 120 days in filing the Revision Petition before the State Commission, reads as under:
"2. That in order to file the Revision Petition within the period of limitation the petitioner was supposed to file the same within 19.12.2017.
3. That, Your petitioner for the first time came to know about the order dated 20.09.2017 on 12.03.2018 and not before when he was being compelled to accept the copy of the pleadings of Your opposite party by Mr. Biswanath De, Learned President, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hooghly and Mr. Surojit Ganguly and Miss Chandralekha Dass, Learned Advocates of the opposite party. In fact after obtaining the certified copy of the order on 16.01.2018 Your petitioner was unable to read the hand writing of that order.
4. That since Your petitioner has a strong arguable case and the C.C. Case number 23 of 2017 is a pending matter before the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Hooghly having next date on 15.05.2018, Your petitioner wants the delay of 120 days may kindly be condoned."
5. The plea taken by the Petitioner herein for seeking condonation of delay of 120 days in filing the Revision Petition before the State Commission that he had come to know about the Interlocutory Order dated 20.09.2017 (the Order appealed against) passed by the District Commission for the first time on 12.03.2018 is belied from the averments made in Para-3 of the Application that he had obtained the certified copy of the Order on 16.01.2018 (i.e. almost two months before 12.03.2018). The Petitioner being a prudent person, more so when he is a practicing Lawyer at Kolkata High Court, as mentioned in Para-4 of the Complaint filed by him before the District Commission, ought to have understood the repercussions of the delay and acted swiftly in filing the Revision Petition before the State Commission as soon as he received the certified copy of the Interlocutory Order dated 20.09.2017 on 16.01.2018 but that was not so. Had the Petitioner acted diligently after receiving the certified copy of the Order on 16.01.2018, he could have mitigated the delay to a considerable extent and what would have prevailed in such a situation nobody knows. The Petitioner further stated that after receiving the certified copy of the Order on 16.01.2018, he was unable to read the said Order as it was hand written. As noted above, as the Petitioner was an educated person and admittedly was an Advocate, we are unable to comprehend why the Petitioner was unable to read and understand the said Order.
6. It is trite law that the expression 'sufficient cause' cannot be construed liberally if negligence, inaction or lack of bonafides are attributable to the party, praying for exercise of such discretion in its favour. It is equally well settled that when a Statute provides for a particular period of limitation, it has to be scrupulously applied, as an unlimited limitation leads to a sense of uncertainty.
7. In this view of the matter, it is evident that the Petitioner had failed to make out any cause, much less a 'sufficient cause' for condonation of delay of 120 days in filing the Revision Petition before the State Commission and the State Commission for the reasons recorded in the Impugned Order dated 26.07.2018 was justified in declining to condone the delay.
8. The present Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. However, bearing in mind the fact that the Complaint, filed by the Petitioner herein before the District Commission in the year 2017, is still pending, awaiting the Order of this Commission in the present Revision Petition, we request the District Commission to decide the same expeditiously in accordance with law, preferably within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this Order is produced before it.
9. The Office is directed to send a copy of this Order to the District Commission forthwith.
......................J R.K. AGRAWAL PRESIDENT ...................... DR. S.M. KANTIKAR MEMBER