SRI SUBHRA SANKAR BHATTA, PRESIDING MEMBER
The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed at the behest of the Revisionists/Petitioners viz. 1) Jana Small Finance Bank Limited and 2) The Branch Manager, Jana Small Finance Bank Limited under Section 47(1) (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the Respondents viz. 1) Biplab Chakraborty and 2) AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, ICICI PRUDENTIAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED assailing the impugned order dated 17.07.2023 vide order no. 4 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata Unit—II, Central in connection with consumer complaint case no. CC/78/2023 whereby the Ld. District Commission was pleased to pass the following order:-
“Order No. 4 Dated 17.07.2023
Ld. Advocate for the complainant is present. Ld. Advocate for the OPs-2 and 3 is also present.
OP-1 has not entered appearance.
WV is filed by the OPs-2 and 3. Ld. Advocate for the complainant has raised objection for acceptance of WV.
On scrutiny of the postal internet track report it appears that the notices have been served to the OPs-2 and 3 way back on 20.05.2023 and 18.05.2023. Stipulated period for filing WV by the OPs-2 and 3 has already been elapsed and as such we are not inclined to accept the WV filed by the OPs-2 and 3 today.
No WV has been filed by the OP-1 to contest the case. Stipulated period for filing WV by the OP-1 has already been elapsed.
In view of the above, the case do proceed ex parte against the OPs.
Fix 11.09.2023 for ex parte hearing of the case. Complainant to file E/chief on that date. BWA as per CP regulation.”
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the above order of the District Commission the Revisionists/Petitioners have preferred the present Revision Petition on 19th September, 2023 before this Hon`ble State Commission and sought for relief and redressal more particularly described in the prayer portion of Revision Petition.
Biplab Chakraborty as Complainant instituted the consumer complaint case before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Unit-II, Kolkata under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 which was duly registered and numbered as CC Case No. 126/2022 on the allegations of deficiency in service and unfair trade practices on the part of the OPs and prayed for certain relief/reliefs. On 17.07.2023 respective Ld. Counsels representing Complainant, OP No. 2 and OP No. 3 were found present but OP No. 1 did not turn up. OP Nos. 2 and 3 filed W/V but the Ld. Commission did not incline to accept the same on the ground of filing the W/V beyond the stipulated period of limitation. Ld. District Commission was further pleased to proceed with the complaint case ex parte and fix the next date i.e. on 11.09.2023 for ex parte hearing of the complaint case.
Revisionists/Petitioners have categorically contended that the impugned ex parte order passed by the Ld. District Commission are based on mere surmises and conjectures; that the Ld. District Commission acted illegally and with material irregularity; that the impugned order dated 17.07.2023 passed by the Ld. District Commission is irrational, irrelevant and without any application of mind. It has been alleged that the Revisionist/Company was not provided with the annexures resulted delay in filing the W/V. It has been specifically contended that the Revisionists/Petitioners will suffer irreparable loss and injury if the impugned ex parte order of the Ld. Commission below is not set aside. On all such grounds the Revisionists/Petitioners have prayed for allowing the present Revision Petition after setting aside the impugned order dated 17.07.2023 passed in the complaint proceeding.
The order sheet dated 17.07.2023 (vide order no. 4) goes to indicate that the OP Nos. 2 and 3 received the notices way back on 20.05.2023 and 18.05.2023 respectively. The postal track report goes to prove the same. On such ground Ld. District Commission did not accept the W/V filed by OP Nos. 2 and 3 on that date and proceeded with the complaint case ex parte against the OPs.
During the course of hearing Ld. Counsel appearing for the Revisionists/Petitioners has submitted that the Revisionists/Petitioners failed to present their W/V before the Ld. Commission below as they did not receive the annexures. According to the Ld. Counsel those annexures are very vital for preparing the befitting reply. Ld. Counsel has vehemently urged that the impugned order suffers from glaring illegality and miscarriage of justice. He has prayed for allowing the present Revision Petition after setting aside the impugned order.
On the contrary Ld. Counsel appearing for the Respondent/Complainant has drawn our attention to Section 38(2)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and vehemently argued that the OP shall give his W/V of a complaint case within a period of thirty days or such extended period not exceeding fifteen days as may be granted by the Commission. He has prayed for outright rejection of the Revision Petition with costs.
The impugned order of the Ld. Commission below clearly proves that despite receiving the notice on 20.05.2023 and 18.05.2023 respectively from the Ld. Commission below OP Nos. 2 and 3 failed to present their W/V within the stipulated period as envisaged under the Act. Undoubtedly, the W/V was filed from the end of the OP Nos. 2 and 3 beyond the period of limitation. It has been alleged by the Revisionists/Petitioners that they did not receive the annexure along with the notice and as such they failed to file the W/V within the stipulated period. Such version of the Revisionists/Petitioners goes to establish that the Revisionists/Petitioners received the notices from the Ld. Commission below in time but failed to file the W/V. The Revisionists/Petitioners have raised the question of non-receiving the annexure with the notice cannot be and should not be considered at this juncture. Reasons best known to the Revisionists/Petitioners why they did not file proper application before the Ld. Commission below raising the question of non-receiving the annexure. It is the settled principles of law that the Ld. Commission has no power or authority to accept the W/V after the expiry of statutory period. Thus, being the position of law we are of the firm view that the Ld. Commission below is absolutely justified in passing the order dated 17.07.2023. We do not also find any error, illegality or irregularity in the impugned order of the Ld. Commission below. Considering all aspects and having considered the position of law Ld. Commission below arrived at the perfect conclusion.
In the result the impugned order requires to be sustained in the eye of law.
The present Revision Petition fails.
It is,therefore,
O R D E R E D
That the present Revision Petition i.e. 128/2023 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the Respondent/Complainant but considering the circumstances without any order as to costs.
The impugned order (vide order no. 4) dated 17.07.2023 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata, Unit-II (Central) in consumer complaint case no. CC/78/2023 is hereby affirmed.
Ld. Commission below is directed to proceed with the complaint case in accordance with law and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible preferably within six months from the date of passing the order.
Respondent/Complainant is directed to appear before the Ld. District Commission on09.07.2024 for receiving further order.
Interim order, if any, be vacated forthwith.
Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the Ld. Commission below at once for information and taking necessary action.
Let free copy of this order be handed over to the respective parties maintaining all the required formalities.
Thus, the Revision Petition stands disposed of.
Note accordingly.
