State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sri Indranil Mukherjee vs Smt.Roshini Laha on 20 February, 2018
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION WEST BENGAL 11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087 Revision Petition No. RP/124/2016 (Arisen out of Order Dated 28/06/2016 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/182/2016 of District Kolkata-III(South)) 1. Sri Indranil Mukherjee S/o Tapan Mukherjee, 62, Lake Avenue, Gr. Floor, Kolkata - 700 026, P.S. Tollygunge. 2. Mrs. Gopa Mukherjee W/o Indranil Mukherjee, 62, Lake Avenue, Gr. Floor, Kolkata - 700 026, P.S. Tollygunge. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Smt.Roshini Laha W/o Chandan Dhar, Active Acress Tower - 6, Block-A, 17th Floor, Flat - 17A, 54/10, D.C.Dey Road, Kolkata - 700 015. ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. SHYAMAL GUPTA PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. UTPAL KUMAR BHATTACHARYA MEMBER For the Petitioner: Mr. Prasanta Banerjee, Advocate For the Respondent: Mr. Prabir Basu.Ms,.Sritoma Mondal., Advocate Dated : 20 Feb 2018 Final Order / Judgement Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member
Challenge under this Revision is the Order dated 28-06-2016 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Kolkata Unit-III (South) in C.C. No. 182/2016 whereof the maintainability petition moved by the Revisionists has been rejected.
To narrate in brief, case of the Revisionists is that the Respondent/Complainant entrusted the job of interior decoration of her flat upon the Revisionists. As per the quotation dated 03-07-2011, the said work was supposed to be completed within 4/5 months. Alleging non-completion of work, the Respondent/Complainant lodged a complaint with local Police Station on 12-09-2013. The Respondent/Complainant further stated to have communicated by letter the matter to the Revisionists and finally filed the complaint. In this regard, it is submitted by the Revisionists that the Ld. District Forum erred in not considering the fact that exchange of letter/ correspondence does not extend the period of limitation. Accordingly, they prayed for setting aside the impugned order.
We have heard the arguments advanced by the Ld. Advocates of both sides and perused the documents on record carefully.
In terms of Sec. 24A(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, District Forum has been debarred from admitting a complaint unless the same is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. At the same time, in terms of Sec. 24A(2) of the Act, a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the Complainant satisfies the District Forum that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period.
Thus, it appears that a delayed complaint can also be admitted if the Ld. District Forum is satisfied that there was sufficient cause behind non-filing of the complaint within the stipulated time frame.
Accordingly, let us see, whether the delayed filing was properly explained or not.
It appears from the petition of complaint that by submitting a quotation on 03-07-2011, the Revisionists undertook to execute the work within 4/5 months and total consideration of the said work was settled at Rs. 12,30,000/-. Allegedly, after doing 20% to 25% of the work, the Revisionists repeatedly pressed hard for coughing up money and left with no other choice, the Respondent gave in to such unethical demands of the Revisionists. According to the payment details provided, the Respondent paid Rs. 50,000/- lastly on 13-02-2013. It appears that till date, the Respondent paid a sum of Rs. 8,50,000/- + Rs. 3,20,000/- = 11,70,000/- to the Revisionists which has not been disputed by them.
It further transpires that since May, 2013 onwards the Revisionists were untraceable for a considerable period of time since the office of the Revisionists was under lock and key. After vigorous searching, the Respondent came to know the residential address of the Revisionists sometimes around December, 2015 and thereafter; she started communicating with them at the said address. Significantly the above allegations have also not been specifically denied by the Revisionists.
From the details, as provided hereinabove, it cannot be said that, there was any intentional laches on the part of the Respondent behind delayed filing of the complaint. The last payment being made on 13-02-2013, there can be no manner of two opinions as to the fact that the cause of action lingered/continued till that day. Thereafter, since the Revisionists were untraceable for nearly 1½ year, there was hardly any point lodging complaint case before the Ld. District Forum.
Considering all these facts, we are of view that circumstances beyond the control of the Respondent/Complainant stood in the way of filing the complaint within the prescribed time limit.
Hon'ble Supreme Court after exhaustively considering the case law on the aspect of condonation of delay in Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation reported in (2010) 5 SCC 459 observed as under ;
"We have considered the respective submissions. The law of limitation is founded on public policy. The legislature does not prescribe limitation with the object of destroying the rights of the parties but to ensure that they do not resort to dilatory tactics and seek remedy without delay. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a period fixed by the legislature. To put it differently, the law of limitation prescribes a period within which legal remedy can be availed for redress of the legal injury. At the same time, the courts are bestowed with the power to condone the delay, if sufficient cause is shown for not availing the remedy within the stipulated time".
Reliance may also be placed upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Katiji, AIR 1987 SC 1353, wherein the Court was of following opinion:
"It is common knowledge that this Court has been making a justifiably liberal approach in matters instituted in this Court. But the message does not appear to have percolated down to all the other Courts in the hierarchy. And such a liberal approach is adopted on principle as it is realized that:-
1. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late.
2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties.
3. "Every day's delay must be explained" does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner.
4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay.
5. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk.
6. It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so."
Hon'ble National Commission in EMCO Ltd. v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2018 (1) CPR 239 (NC) has been pleased to held that sufficient cause with regard to condonation of delay in each case is a question of fact.
Taking into consideration the aforesaid solemn decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble National Commission and the compelling circumstances encountered by the Respondent, we are of considered view that there was sufficient reason for delayed filing of the complaint and therefore, by rejecting the maintainability petition, the Ld. District Forum committed no jurisdictional error. Therefore, we see no cogent ground to interfere with the impugned order. Rather, taking into consideration the dilly-dallying tactics adopted by the Revisionists in the matter, we are inclined to impose cost upon them.
The Revision, thus, fails.
Hence, O R D E R E D The Revision stands dismissed on contest against the Respondent with a cost of Rs. 10,000/-, being payable by the Revisionists to the Respondent. The impugned order is hereby affirmed. [HON'BLE MR. SHYAMAL GUPTA] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MR. UTPAL KUMAR BHATTACHARYA] MEMBER