M.A. 256/2010

18.02.2011

The record is placed today for passing necessary orders in respect of Review Petition No. 4047 read with Section 114 & 151 C.P.C.

The main contention of the application, brief, is that the Petitioner/ Appellant/OP being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the finding of the Ld. District Forum, Murshidabad, in Case No. CC/101/2009 preferred an Appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal, being numbered FA/144/2010.  But unfortunately this Commission having overlooked the malafide and bad intention of the Complainant/Respondent and having not considered the fraud and misrepresentation practiced at the instance of the Complainant/Respondent, which is apparent on the face of the record has dismissed the Appeal to the detriment of the interest of the Appellant/OP and hence, the Review Application.

At the time of hearing it has been submitted by the Ld. Advocate for the Petitioner that when from the face of the record it has become quite evident that the documents upon which the complainant has relied, are forged one, the Review Application has got sufficient merit and the same should be disposed of in favour of the petitioner by setting aside the impugned judgement as prayed for.  According to the Ld. Advocate, when the Petitioner has been able to produce necessary correspondence document from the Bank in question, which has clearly denied to have sent any information to the Complainant as claimed by the Complainant, there should not be any iota of doubt about the falsity of the Complainant’s case.  While clarifying the position the Ld. Advocate has submitted before us that in spite of best efforts the said document could not be procured in time and as such, the petitioner was prevented by sufficient cause from not producing it before the Hon’ble State Commission at the time of Appeal hearing and as such, no adverse opinion should be drawn against the Petitioner.  The Ld. Advocate has also relied upon a decision reported in 1996 WBLR (CPSC) 1.

We have duly considered the submission so put forward on behalf of the Petitioner and have gone through the materials on record and find that the Petitioner has prayed for review of the matter on the ground of fraud practiced by the Complainant, which, according to the Petitioner has become evident from subsequent procurement of the document from the concerned bank denying any correspondence with the complainant.

We are unable to accept such proposition inasmuch as the Petitioner has failed to plead fraud at the very first instance, i.e. in the written objection filed before the Ld. District Forum.  In the cited decision it has been observed that question of review might be considered if there was any fraud in the case.  The Petitioner having failed to plead and prove any such case of fraud the principles laid down in the cited decision is not applicable.  We are also unable to consider the Bank correspondence relied upon by the Petitioner, which has been admittedly procured by the Petitioner subsequently. 

Thus we find no merit in the Review Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.  In the result, the Review Application fails.  The Misc. Application stands finally disposed of on contest without any cost.