Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

This Revision has been filed u/s 17(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. against the Order dated 23-12-2016 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Kolkata-I (North) in C.C. No. 271/2012.

It is the case of the Revisionists that they moved an application challenging the maintainability of the complaint case.  However, the Ld. District Forum, without disposing the said petition, decided to take a call on the issue at the time of final hearing.  Further case of the Revisionists is that on 12-12-2016, the date was fixed by the Ld. District to file WV by the Revisionists.  However, as it was subsequently declared as a local holiday, the case record was put up on 13-12-2016, when the Ld. District Forum fixed the next date on 23-12-2016 for filing WV.    However, due to such short span of time, the clerk of the concerned Ld. Advocate of the Revisionist could not obtain the next date and due to this, no step could be taken by these Revisionists on 23-12-2016 and on that day, the Ld. District fixed the matter for ex parte evidence.  Aggrieved by such decision of the Ld. District Forum, the present Revision has been filed.

Heard the Ld. Advocates of both sides, also perused the material on record carefully.

At the very outset, we would like to put on record our deep anguish over the manner in which the instant complaint has been handled by the Ld. District Forum.  Under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, there is clear stipulation to the effect that WV has to be filed by the OP within 30 days of receipt of notice.  Although the statute empowers District Forum to extend this period by another 15 days, beyond this, the District Forum has got no authority grant even single additional day for this purpose.

On going through the order sheets of the concerned case record it transpires that the Revisionists appeared before the Ld. District Forum on 08-10-2012.  Quite obviously, notice was duly served upon the Revisionists prior to that day.  Against such backdrop, how the matter of filing WV was kept at abeyance for more than 4 years is simply baffling.  May be that the Revisionists put up a maintainability petition before the Ld. District Forum on 08-10-2012 which was not decided for years together.  However, the Ld. District Forum should have appreciated that on account of pendency of decision in respect of the maintainability petition, the time-limit for filing WV cannot be stretched beyond the statutory limitation contained u/s 13(a) of the Act.

This is not the first time that we have come across such severe breach of statutory provision by the Ld. District Forum.  We are, therefore, constrained to ask the Ld. District Forum to get its act together so as to impart substantial justice to aggrieved parties.  

Coming to the present Revision, WV being not filed within the statutory period of limitation, the Revisionists does not deserve any further opportunity for this purpose.  Accordingly, the impugned order cannot be faulted with.

Revision, thus, fails.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

That the Revision be and the same is dismissed on contest without any cost.  The impugned order is hereby affirmed.