State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
International College Of Financial ... vs Teesta Chakraborty on 26 September, 2012
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission West Bengal BHABANI BHAVAN (GROUND FLOOR) 31, BELVEDERE ROAD, ALIPORE KOLKATA 700 027 S.C. CASE NO. : RP/146/2011 (Arisen out of Order No. 5 dt. 20.10.11 in CDF/Unit-I/258/2011 of DCDRF, Kolkata, Unit-I) DATE OF FILING : 20.12.2011 DATE OF FINAL ORDER: 26.09.2012 REVISIONAL PETITIONER International College of Financial Planning Registered Office at 5th Floor, Bajaj House 97, Nehru Place, New Delhi-110 019. Second Address :- 21-A, Shakespeare Sarani, Shakespeare Court, 5th Floor, Kolkata-700 017 West Bengal. OPPOSITE PARTIES 1. Teesta Chakraborty D/o Sri Bhaskar Chakraborty R/o. 1/208, Naktala, Kolkata-700 047. 2. IASE University Office at Plot No. 9, Sector-10 Opposite DDA Sports Complex Dwarka, New Delhi-110 075. 3. Indian Overseas Bank FA-Block, Sector-1, Opposite Laboni Estate Saltlake, Kolkata-700 064. BEFORE : HONBLE JUSTICE MR. KALIDAS MUKHERJEE, PRESIDENT MEMBER : MR. S.COARI MEMBER : MRS. MRIDULA ROY FOR THE PETITIONER : Mr. G.G.Roy, Mr. P.K.Giri, Ld. Advocates FOR THE O.P.S.: Mr. Aashif Hussain, Ld. Advocate : O R D E R :
MR. S.COARI, LD. MEMBER The present Revisional Application has been preferred against Order No. 5 dt. 20.10.11 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata, Unit-I, in CDF/Unit-I/258/2011, wherein the Ld. District Forum rejected the petition regarding maintainability of the petition of complaint filed by the OP No. 1/Revisionist.
The background under which the present Revisional Application has come up may be stated briefly as follows :-
Initially the Complainant/OP instituted a Consumer Complaint, which was dismissed for default at the initial stage. Subsequently, on the self-same ground another petition of complaint has been preferred in which the OP/Revisionist entered appearance and filed an application on the point of maintainability of the second Consumer Complaint. The main contention of the Revisionist/OP No. 1 before the Ld. District Forum, in brief, was that since the first complaint was dismissed for default and the complainant without taking proper steps for revival of the dismissed complaint has filed the second complaint on the self-same ground thereby suppressing the fact of previous dismissal of the complaint and institution of the second complaint on the self-same ground being not permissible under the facts and circumstances of the present case, the second complaint was not maintainable and was liable to be dismissed. The Ld. District Forum while disposing of the application on the point of maintainability has observed that the previous case being not disposed of on merit and dismissed due to non-appearance of the complainant and regard being had to the object of enactment of the Consumer Protection Act being for speedy disposal, it was just and proper to accept the second complaint even keeping in mind that the previous complaint on the self-same ground was dismissed for default. Ld. District Forum has also observed that in the absence of specific provisions for restoration of the dismissed petition of complaint, as provided in the Civil Procedure Code, for interest of justice the second petition of complaint on the self-same ground should be accepted and accordingly, dismissed the petition on the ground of maintainability filed by the OP/Revisionist.
The only moot question that revolves round the present Revisional Application is as to whether the Ld. District Forum was justified enough in passing the impugned order as mentioned above.
Case laws referred to by the Revisionist :-
1.
I (2000) CPJ 19 (SC)
2. I (2001) CPJ 5 (NC)
3. Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh F.A. No. 334 of 1992 M/s. L.R.Gupta & Co.
Vs. Telecom District Manager.
4. 2011 AIR SCW 249
5. AIR 2009 KERALA 89
6. AIR 2000 SC 941 DECISION WITH REASONS At the time of hearing it has been submitted on behalf of the Complainant/OP that the Ld. District Forum has rightly rejected the petition on the ground of maintainability filed by the Revisionist and the impugned order is very much sustainable under the law. According to the Ld. Advocate for the OP/Complainant, when it is an admitted position that there is no specific provision for restoration of a petition of complaint, which has been dismissed on the ground of default, unless and until the institution of a second complaint on the self-same ground is provided, the very purpose of enactment of the Consumer Protection Act will be frustrated and the Ld. District Forum keeping in mind this proposition has rightly rejected the application on the ground of maintainability of the second petition of complaint and in passing the impugned order the Ld. District Forum has not committed any miscarriage of justice or any irregularity and considering this aspect of the case the Revisional Application should be dismissed.
We have duly considered the submissions so put forward on behalf of the OP/Complainant and have also gone through the materials on record including the impugned order and find that in this case initially the complainant/OP filed a Consumer Complaint, which at the initial stage was dismissed on the ground of default.
Subsequently, the complainant without availing of the procedure for restoration of the dismissed complaint has instituted a second petition of complaint on the self-same ground and in the process, has suppressed the fact of dismissal of the previous complaint on the ground of default. The OP entered appearance in the second petition of complaint and filed the application on the ground of maintainability, which was rejected by the Ld. District forum by passing the impugned order. On perusal of the impugned order we find that the Ld. District Forum has overlooked the legal position that in case of dismissal of a consumer complaint on the ground of default, the procedure available to the complainant is to take recourse to law by filing an appeal before the higher forum and without doing so, the complainant filed the second consumer complaint on the self-same ground and that too suppressing the fact of dismissal of the previous complaint on the ground of default. Taking into consideration the different decisions relied upon by the Revisionist we find that the Honble Superior Courts in the aforesaid decisions have discouraged the institution of the second consumer complaint on the self-same ground, when the previous one was dismissed on the ground of default. If that be the position, we think that the Ld. District Forum has committed error in rejecting the application filed by the OP/Revisionist on the ground of maintainability and in our opinion, the institution of the second consumer complaint without availing of the procedure thereby seeking restoration of the complaint, which was dismissed for default earlier, is not permissible under the law and on this score alone the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
Having considered the present Revisional Application in the light of above discussions we find much merit in the present Revisional Application, which, in our opinion, should be allowed.
In the result, the Revisional Application succeeds.
Hence, it is ORDERED that the Revisional Application stands allowed on contest without any order as to cost. The impugned order stands set aside. Consequently the application filed by the Revisionist/OP before the Ld. District Forum thereby challenging the institution of the second consumer complaint stands allowed and the second consumer complaint stands dismissed.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT