Hon’ble Mrs. Soma Bhattacharjee, Member

A/120/2021 has been filed by Abdul Murshid against Bata India Ltd respondent no. 1, Customer Service Manager respondent no. 2, Manager Bata Store Kohli Mansion respondent 3, challenging the order of the Ld. DCDRF, Kolkata Unit II in MA application no. 488/2021.

In the MA/488/2021 Ld. DCDRF, Kolkata Unit II observed: “ In para 10 of the complaint petition the complainant explained the reason of delay in filing the consumer complaint but the complainant did not choose to file any separate Miscellaneous Application under sub section (2) of Section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 seeking condonation of delay in filing the complaint. Thus, the complaint is barred by limitation and we are not inclined to admit the complaint and complaint is rejected.”

The case in brief is as follows: The appellant purchased a pair of shoes from Bata Outlet at Kohli Mansion Kolkata at the price of Rs. 8,999/-. Later he discovered some discrepancies in the price, batch no. etc of the product. So, the appellant filed a complaint case CC/370/2021 before the Ld. DCDRC, Kolkata, Unit II. The complaint case was not admitted by the DCDRF on the grounds of limitation period.

Heard both sides. Considered.

In this context the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in MA no. 665 of 2021 in SMW (C) No. 3 of 2020, dt. 23.09.2021 may be cited, wherein the Hon’ble Apex court ordered..... “ In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 02.10.2021, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 03.10.2021. In the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 03.10.2021, is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply.

          The period from 15.03.2020 till 02.10.2021 shall also stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under Section 23 (4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings.”

          In view of the factual scenario of the case and position of law cited above we are of the view that the impugned order cannot be sustained and it should be set aside.

Hence it is Ordered

The Appeal being no. A/120/2021 is allowed on contest. Impugned order is set aside.

The MA/488/2021 filed before the Ld. DCDRC, Kolkata Unit II is hereby allowed on contest.

Complaint case CC/370/2021 be restored in its original file and the Ld. DCDRF below is directed to dispose of the case after giving both sides an opportunity of being heard as early as possible.

Both parties are directed to appear before Ld. DCDRF, Kolkata Unit II on the date fixed by them.

The Joint Registrar of this Commission is directed to do the needful in this matter.