State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sri Tapas Chowdhury & Others vs Sri Tarun Kanti Das & Another on 8 March, 2022
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION WEST BENGAL 11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087 First Appeal No. A/27/2022 ( Date of Filing : 18 Feb 2022 ) (Arisen out of Order Dated 24/12/2019 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/24/2019 of District North 24 Parganas) 1. Sri Tapas Chowdhury & Others S/o, Lt Dr. H.K.Chowdhury. 76, Udaypur Station Road, P.S.- Nimta, Kolkata- 700 049, Dist- Norh 24 Parganas. 2. Sri Subhas Chowdhury S/o, Lt Dr. H.K.Chowdhury. 76, Udaypur Station Road, P.S.- Nimta, Kolkata- 700 049, Dist- Norh 24 Parganas. 3. Sri Provash Chowdhury S/o, Lt Dr. H.K.Chowdhury. 76, Udaypur Station Road, P.S.- Nimta, Kolkata- 700 049, Dist- Norh 24 Parganas. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Sri Tarun Kanti Das & Another S/o, Sri Tapan Das. Subash Pally, 18 No. Ward, Siliguri, Pin- 734 001. 2. Smt. Chhaya Das W/o, Sri Tapan Das. Subash Pally, 18 No. Ward, Siliguri, Pin- 734 001. ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT MANDAL PRESIDENT HON'BLE MRS. SAMIKSHA BHATTACHARYA MEMBER PRESENT: Mr. Surojit Banerjee, Advocate for the Appellant 1 None appears ......for the Respondent Dated : 08 Mar 2022 Final Order / Judgement
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT MANDAL, PRESIDENT The instant Appeal is filed by the Opposite Parties/Appellants, Tapas Chowdhury , Subhas Chowdhury and Provash Chowdhury against the judgement and order dated 24.12.2019 passed by the ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressed Commission, North 24 Parganas at Barasat (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in C.C. Case no. 24 of 2019 along with an application for condonation of delay in preferring the Appeal against the aforesaid judgement.
Today is fixed for hearing on the point of admission.
The same is taken up for hearing and order on condonation petition.
Heard ld.Advocate appearing for the appellants at length and in full.
Facts needed to be discussed are as follows :
The appellants did not get an opportunity to contest the Complaint case as such the District Forum below was pleased to pass the impugned order and judgement causing irreparable loss and injury to the Appellants. The ld. Court below was pleased to pass the impugned order and judgement on 24.12.2019 . The appellants appointed ld. Advocate to take steps in the Complaint case but the ld. Advocate did not take any steps on behalf of the Appellants/Opposite Parties and ultimately exparte judgement has been passed against them. The ld.Advocate appearing for the appellants before the District Forum did not inform such incident to the appellants and remained silent saying that the matter has been solved and appellants need not worry about the same as the dispute has been solved. Subsequently, the appellants had obtained the notice of Execution case being No.3 of 2020 and got perplexed and on scrutiny the appellants have found that the ld.Advocate did not take any proper steps to contest the case and as a result the appellants have suffered irreparable loss and injury. Further the case of the appellants is that due to imposition of lock down the appellants could not able to file the appeal in time before this Hon'ble Commission immediately. Certified copy of the order was applied on 8.2.2022 and the same was received on 8.2.2022 and after going through the said order the appellants have decided to file an appeal and finding no other alternative the appellants have filed the present appeal.
Perused the record and considered.
Ld. Advocate appearing for the Appellants while urging for condonation of delay as sought for relied upon para 13 and 14 which are as follows :-
"Para 13. That the appellant has filed the present appeal beyond the statutory period. Truly speaking the appellant was prevented by sufficient and reasonable cause due to the reason of such delay. So the unintentional delay should be condoned as the appellant has described the sufficient causes for unintentional delay in filing instant application. Thus the sufficient and the reasonable causes as aforesaid are to be considered and the Ld. Court be pleased to condone the delay. It is the principle of Law that the expression of sufficient cause must receive a liberal construction so s to advance the substantial justice and generally delays are to be condoned in the interest of justice. The cause of sufficient reason has to be considered liberally so as to advance the cause of justice and not the cause of technicalities and the case should be decided on merit and the appellant should not be deprived to get the case examined the petitioner was prevented to make such application beyond the statutory period for sufficient and reasonable cause. The delay in filing application for about ......days should be condoned and the impugned order dated 24.12.2019 be set aside.
Para 14. That after considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of such serious grievances it is therefore prayed before the ld.Honorable Commission to condone the unintentional delay in filing the instant appeal and thereby please to set aside the impugned order as passed by this ld.Forum below and opportunity be given to the appellant to contest the aforesaid appeal for the ends of the justice otherwise your appellant will highly be prejudiced."
On perusal of the record we find that there was delay of 757 days in preferring this appeal.
Upon hearing the ld. Advocate and on perusal of the materials on record we find that the above said explanation is without mentioning the specific days and the reason for delay explaining each day of delay is no cause at all much less as sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing an Appeal within meaning of Section 41 of the C.P.Act, 2019.
Therefore, we hold that the delay as explained by the appellants has not been properly explained.
The contention of the appellants that the appellants were prevented by sufficient and reasonable cause for filing the present appeal. So the unintentional delay should be condoned.We think that the delay in filing the appeal cannot be condoned as a matter of generosity, rather there is proff of sufficient cause, discretion for condonation of delay cannot be exercised. According to us, all these explanations as stated in paragraph 13 and 14 of the condonation petition are only to eye wash the mind of this Commission.
We are of the considered opinion, that the appellants acted in such a manner for preferring appeal which is nothing but a mere negligence and not beyond their control, rather the appellants sat over matter for 757 days.
In view of the above , we are of the opinion that the Appellants/Opposite Parties failed to explain the delay properly in filing the connected appeal. The only reasons as stated by the appellants for causing delay cannot be a ground for condonation of delay.
In the result, the prayer for condonation as sought for is rejected and consequent thereto, the Appeal also stands dismissed. No order as to costs. [HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT MANDAL] PRESIDENT [HON'BLE MRS. SAMIKSHA BHATTACHARYA] MEMBER