This Revision Petition by an Indian arm of a multinational Company, viz., Sony India Private Limited, is directed against Order dated 13.10.2014 made by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal (for short “the State Commission”) in FA No.402 of 2014.  By the impugned order, the State Commission has dismissed the Appeal as the Petitioner was unrepresented on the date of hearing and costs imposed for condonation of delay in filing Appeal were not paid.  The order reads as follows:

          “None appears for the Appellant.  Respondent No. 1is present in person.  It appears that on 24.09.2014 the delay was condoned subject to payment of cost of Rs.3,000/- to be paid by the Appellant to the Respondent – Complainant fixing 09.10.2014 for payment of cost and further orders.  On 09.10.2014 none appeared for the Appellant and, therefore, the date has been fixed on 13.10.2014 for payment of cost as a last chance.  Today Appellant is absent on repeated calls.  None appears for the Appellant.  Cost has not been paid.  We, therefore, dismiss the appeal for non-compliance of the order dated 24.09.2014.”

               Hence the present Revision Petition under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

-3-

               Since in our view, the order impugned does not suffer from any Jurisdictional error, warranting interference in our Revisional Jurisdiction, it is unnecessary to burden the order with copious narration of facts, giving rise to this Petition.  It would suffice to note that the District Forum, while allowing the Complaint, alleging unfair trade practice on the part of the Petitioner in refusing to replace the broken LCD monitor of the Laptop purchased by the Complainant, had directed the Petitioner to either replace the Laptop with a new one or refund its cost along with further sums of Rs.20,000/- and Rs.10,000/- as compensation and punitive damages respectively.

               It is pertinent to note that even before the District Forum written statement was not filed on behalf of the Petitioner.  The Counsel also failed to appear, with the result that Petitioner was proceeded against ex parte.  Similarly, the Appeal preferred by the Petitioner against the District Forum’s order was barred by limitation.  Yet the State Commission condoned the delay subject to the Petitioner paying to the Respondent/Complainant a sum of Rs.3,000/- as costs.  Despite two opportunities, neither costs were paid nor Counsel bothered to appear on the dates fixed.

               Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that as there was some confusion in the date of hearing fixed by the District

-4-

Forum, inasmuch as, in the notice issued to the Petitioner, the date of hearing was mentioned as 29.12.2013 but the case was actually fixed for 29.11.2013, the Petitioner remained unrepresented.  It is pleaded that the Petitioner should not be made to suffer for the lapse on the part of the Counsel and therefore, in the interest of justice orders passed by the lower Fora be set aside and the matter be remanded back to the District Forum for fresh adjudication.

               Bearing in mind the conduct of the Petitioner before both the Forums below, briefly referred to above, we are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with the Learned Counsel.

               It is manifest that the Petitioner did not pursue its cause with any sense of seriousness.  Perhaps for its size, the matter being too trivial, its progress was not monitored.  Assuming the date of hearing in the notice was wrongly mentioned as 29.12.2013, which happened to be a Sunday, the Counsel was obliged to appear on the next working day, i.e. 30.12.2013 in order to ascertain the status of the case.  Admittedly, he failed to do so and as per record, he appeared before the District Forum only on 16.01.2014.  Furthermore, as noted above, costs were imposed by the State Commission for condoning the delay in filing the appeal vide order dated 24.09.2014.  The case was listed for hearing on 09.10.2014,

-5-

when again the Petitioner was not represented.  However, hearing was adjourned to 13.10.2014.  We may note, at the cost of repetition that even on that date, neither the costs imposed had been paid nor the Counsel put in appearance.  However, the Complainant remained present in person.

          Under the given circumstances, Petitioner does not deserve any indulgence at the cost of inconvenience and harassment to the Respondent/Complainant.  We do not find it to be a fit case for exercise of our Revisional Jurisdiction.  Accordingly, the Revision Petition is dismissed in limine.