West Bengal

StateCommission

A/522/2016

Sourendra Nath Dutt - Complainant(s)

Versus

Canon India Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

In-person/

30 Jan 2018

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
WEST BENGAL
11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087
 
First Appeal No. A/522/2016
(Arisen out of Order Dated 02/03/2016 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/85/2016 of District Kolkata-II(Central))
 
1. Sourendra Nath Dutt
171/A, Bidhan Sarani, P.S.- Burtolla, Kolkata - 700 006.
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. Canon India Pvt. Ltd.
PS Arcadia Central, 4th & 6th floor, Plot no.4A, Abanindra Nath, Thakur Sarani, Kolkata- 700 017, P.S. Shakespeare Sarani.
2. West Bengal Pollution Control Board
Paribesh Bhaban, 10-A, Block-LA, Sector-III, Salt Lake City, Kolkata - 700 098.
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. SHYAMAL GUPTA PRESIDING MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. UTPAL KUMAR BHATTACHARYA MEMBER
 
For the Appellant:In-person/, Advocate
For the Respondent: Ms. Amrita Pandey., Advocate
Dated : 30 Jan 2018
Final Order / Judgement

Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

This Appeal is directed against the Order dated 02-03-2016 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Kolkata-Unit-II (Central) in C.C. No. 85/2016, whereof the complaint has been dismissed.

It is the case of the Appellant that the Ld. District Forum erred in law in passing the impugned order.  According to the Appellant, the Ld. District Forum illegally passed the impugned order and the same was unjustified and bad in law. 

Heard both sides and perused the material on record.

It appears from the impugned order that the Appellant, by submitting a petition, expressed his unwillingness to proceed with the complaint.  The Appellant further, on his own volition, reaffirmed such desire in black and while on the order sheet.  It seems, honouring such wish of the Appellant, the Ld. District Forum dismissed the complaint.

In view of this, we are totally at a loss, what illegality the Ld. District Forum did in dismissing the complaint. Insofar as the Appellant was least interested to pursue his own case, the Ld. District Forum was left with no other choice but to accede to the prayer of the Appellant.  Further, the Appellant must keep in mind that the onus of proof always rests with the Complainant himself; a Court of Law has no obligation at all to suo motu refer a product to any technical expert for the purpose of determining its quality.

We take strong exception to the fact that, instead of being apologetic of his own hasty act, the Appellant unfairly criticized the Ld. District Forum. This is highly condemnable.  In any case, since the case was not decided on merit, we deem it fit and proper to accord an opportunity to the Appellant to pursue his case before the Ld. District Forum subject to payment of cost.

The Appeal, thus, succeeds in part.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

The Appeal stands allowed on contest in part.  The impugned order is set aside subject to deposit of a cost of Rs. 10,000/- by the Appellant with the Consumer Welfare Fund of the Ld. District Forum within 40 days hence. Subject to deposit of aforesaid requisite cost, the Ld. District Forum shall adjudicate the case on merit.   

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. SHYAMAL GUPTA]
PRESIDING MEMBER
 
[HON'BLE MR. UTPAL KUMAR BHATTACHARYA]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.