West Bengal

Birbhum

MA/45/2017

Sri Asoke Kr. Bandhyopadhyay, S/o Lt. Anil Ch. Bandyopadhyay, - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (BSNL)represented by S.D.O.(T). - Opp.Party(s)

15 Dec 2017

ORDER

Parties file hazira. The petition dated 14.11.17 filed by the O.Ps BSNL for vacating ex parte hearing order and for accepting W.V filed by the O.Ps after stipulated period along with W.V and petition dated 11.10.17 and 14.11.17 filed by the complainant Asoke Kr. Bandopadhyay for not to entertain the W.V filed by the O.Ps after statutory period and to proceed with the case on the basis of evidence to be produced by the complainant are taken up for passing order by treating the same as MA No.45 /17.

We find that the complainant Asoke Kr. Bandopadhyay has filed the present case U/s 12 of CP Act against the O.Ps BSNL for directing the O.Ps to refund the security money of Rs. 2000/-, paid by the complainant at the time of getting telephone connection with interest and compensation of Rs. 10000/- for mental agony and harassment caused by the O.Ps.

We further find that on 07.07.17 O.Ps appeared and prayed for time for filing W.V. On 22.08.17 and 11.10.17 the O.Ps against took adjournment and on 14.11.17 filed written version along with a petition for vacating ex parte order alleging that such delay in filing written version cropped up due to communication gap between several officers of the Department.

During hearing the complainant Mr. Bandopadhyay submitted that the O.Ps appeared on 07.07.17 but he filed W.V on 14.11.17 i.e. long after statutory period 45 days, so the W.V filed by the O.Ps cannot be entertained/accepted.

In support of his contention he cited copy of a judgment passed in FA No. 1705/16 passed by Hon’ble National Commission (Bajaj Allianz Gen Ins. Co. =Vs.=  Sundent India and others), wherein a case of filing of W.V after stipulated period of 45 days, Hon’ble National Commission relying upon the ruling regarding I(2016)CPJ1(SC), New Assurance Co. Ltd. =Vs.= Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage, pleased to observe that time for filing written statement could not have been extended by Ld. State Commission and Ld. State Commission rightly proceeded ex parte against appellant as none appeared before State Commission on that day. By the same order right to file written statement by the O.P No.2A was also closed and the Appeal was ultimately dismissed.He cited another judgement passed in FA No. 1540/2016 by the Hon’ble National Commission (Dr. Rabindranath Jana =Vs.= Alpana Bera Sashmal and others) regarding filing of W.V beyond the stipulated period. In the said judgement Hon’ble National Commission pleased to observe that Dist. Con. Fora have no jurisdiction to extend the period of limitation of 30days provided U/s 13(2) of the C.P Act beyond a further period of 15 days. Admittedly the written statement was sought to be filed in the State Commission after the expiry of 45 days from the date of service of notice of the complainant along with application for condonation of delay. The State commission in view of the law laid down by Supreme Court in the matter of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. =Vs.- Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. was fully justified in declining to condone the delay in filing the written statement and the Appeal was ultimately dismissed.

But Ld. Advocate/Agent of the O.P in his reply submitted a ruling reported in III(2017)CPJ 596(NC) and submitted that in view of the latest decision of the Hon’ble National Commission this Forum may accepted the written version filed by the O.Ps after the statutory period subject to payment of cost.

We find that both judgement filed by the complainant passed by the Hon’ble National Commission were passed relying upon the ruling passed in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. =Vs.= Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd by Hon’ble Apex Court and in latest ruling reported in III(2017)CPJ 596(NC) Hon’ble National Commission pleased to hold that the State Commission relied upon the order in the case, New India Assurance co. Ltd. =Vs.- Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd and refused to entertain their written statement. However as stated in the order dated 10.02.17 Hon’ble Supreme Court in reliance Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd. and others =Vs.= M/s. Mapee Timbers and Hardware Pvt. Ltd. the matter had been referred to a larger Bench to the Hon’ble Supreme Court for taking appropriate view.

It has further been stated in the said order dated 10.02.17 as follows; “We consider it appropriate to direct that pending decision of the larger Bench, it will be open to the concern Forum to accept the written statement filed beyond the stipulated period of 45 days in an appropriate case, on suitable terms, including the payment of cost and to proceed with the matter”.

Ultimately Hon’ble National Commission pleased to hold that following the above decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, I deem it in the interest of justice that the written statement filed on the appellant filed on 30.05.16 should be allowed to be taken on record subject to the payment of cost of Rs. 25000/- to the respondent.

Considering overall matter into consideration and relying upon the latest ruling passed by Hon’ble National Commission cited in in III(2017)CPJ 596(NC) we are constrained to hold that the O.Ps entitled to get an opportunity to filing W.V even after stipulated period, subject to the payment of cost.

We find that in the ruling reported in in III(2017)CPJ 596(NC)Hon’ble National Commission pleased to impose cost of Rs. 25000/- against the O.Ps at the time of acceptance of the W.V.

But in the present case total valuation of the case is only Rs. 2000/-.

So, we think cost of Rs. 500/- would met the ends of justice.

Hence, ordered,

                        the petition dated 14.11.17 filed by the O.Ps BSNL for vacating ex parte hearing order and for accepting W.V filed by the O.Ps after stipulated period along with W.V i.e.  Mis. Case No. __/2017 be and the same is allowed on contest with a cost of Rs. 500/- payable to the complainant by the O.Ps. But petition dated 11.10.17 and 14.11.17 filed by the complainant are rejected on contest without any

Thus MA is disposed of accordingly.

Fix 13.02.2018 filing evidence on affidavit by the complainant and payment of cost of Rs. 500/- to the complainant by the O.Ps.