State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The State Bank Of India vs Dr. B. R. Ambedkar College (B.Ed. ... on 18 September, 2017
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION WEST BENGAL 11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087 Revision Petition No. RP/6/2017 (Arisen out of Order Dated 15/12/2016 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/316/2013 of District Kolkata-II(Central)) 1. The State Bank of India Head Qtrs., Corporate Centre, Madame Cama Marg, Mumbai -400 021. 2. The General Manager, Customer Grievance Cell, S.B.I Network-II, Kolkata, Samriddhi Bhawan, 1, Strand Road, Kolkata -700 001. 3. The Deputy General Manager, S.B.I. Zonal office- Howrah, Ganges Garden Complex, 106, Kiran Singh Road, Howrah -711 102. 4. The Chief Manager, S.B.I Debra AD Br., Debra, Paschim Midnapore. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar College (B.ED. Section), Malighati imparting Education, Santi Bhawan, P.O. & Vill. -Malighati, Dist. West Midnapor, Pin-721 211. 2. Sri Sachindra Nath Mishra S/o Lt. Ramanath Mishra, S/113, Mitra Compound, Midnapur, P.O. - Midnapur, P.S.- Kotwali(Midnapore), Dist. Paschim Midnapur, Pin-721 101. 3. Sri Aswini Kr. Mondal Vill.- Makarkole, P.O. - Panchara Deuli, P.S. - Sarenga, Dist. Bankura, Pin0 722 150. ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. SHYAMAL GUPTA PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. UTPAL KUMAR BHATTACHARYA MEMBER For the Petitioner: For the Respondent: Dated : 18 Sep 2017 Final Order / Judgement Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member
Present Revision is directed against the Order dated 15-12-2016 of Ld. District Forum, Kolkata - II (Central) in C.C. No. 316/2013.
By such Revision, it is stated by the Revisionists that on notice, they appeared before the Ld. District Forum through their Ld. Advocate on 28-11-2013. Thereafter, the matter remained stayed for a long time since May, 2014 to 22-07-2016 in view of the stay order granted by this Commission which left the Revisionists with no scope to file WV. Thereafter, vide Order dated 22-11-2016, the Ld. District Forum fixed 02-12-2016 for filing WV by the OPs of complaint case. The Revisionists filed a petition seeking further time for filing WV on the personal ground of the conducting Ld. Advocate of the Revisionists. However, vide its impugned order, such prayer of the Revisionists was rejected which has caused great prejudice to the Revisionists. Hence, the Revision.
In terms of Sec. 13(2)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1986 Act'), if the complaint relates to any services, the District Forum shall refer a copy of such complaint to the opposite party directing him to give his version of the case within a period of thirty days or such extended period not exceeding fifteen days as may be granted by the District Forum.
The statutory position in respect of submission of WV, is thus, quite clear, i.e., WV has to be submitted within 30 days of service of notice upon the OP and the said period although may be extended by another 15 days at the sole discretion of the Ld. District Forum, beyond that period, even the Ld. District Forum cannot accommodate/grant a single day for the purpose of filing WV. It being a statutory provision, the same is sacrosanct. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. reported in AIR 2016 SC 86 elucidated the matter quite elaborately.
Undisputedly, the Revisionists miserably failed to adhere to the said timeframe. Even initially when they appeared before the Ld. District Forum on 28-11-2013, they did not file WV. Further, on 17-01-2014, when one petition was moved by the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 expressing their desire to be added as parties to the complaint case, the Revisionists did not file any WV without appreciating the fact that statutory time frame for filing WV already got over by then itself.
Therefore, even though the complaint lingered thereafter over pendency of Revisional and Transfer Applications before this Commission, it was of little or no consequence to aid the cause of the Revisionists in anyway for the simple reason that the threshold period for filing WV by the Revisionists lapsed much before filing of those two petitions before this Commission by the Respondent No. 1.
It seems, somehow such vital aspect escaped the attention of the Ld. District Forum for which it granted further time to the OPs of the complaint case for filing WV on 22-11-2016. Be that as it may, fact remains that vide its impugned Order, the Ld. District Forum rectified such irregularity.
The impugned Order being fully in consonance with the statutory provisions of the 1986 Act, we see no reason to interfere with the same.
Revision, thus, fails.
Hence, O R D E R E D That RP/6/2017 be and the same is dismissed on contest being bereft of any merit. The impugned Order stands hereby affirmed. [HON'BLE MR. SHYAMAL GUPTA] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MR. UTPAL KUMAR BHATTACHARYA] MEMBER