Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member
Instant Appeal arises out of the Order dated 29-07-2015 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Paschim Medinipur in C.C. No. 115/2014 whereof the complaint has been dismissed on limitation ground.
By filing this Appeal, it is stated by the Appellant that the purported repudiation letter dated 21-03-2012 was not received by it and therefore, it continuously pursued the matter with the Respondents till the latter vide its letter dated 28-05-2014 disclosed the fact of repudiation of its claim vide letter 21-03-2012. Denying any knowledge about the instant repudiation of its claim by the Respondents, the Appellant prayed for setting aside the impugned order.
By submitting a WO, it is submitted by the Respondents that they sent the repudiation letter dated 21-03-2012 through courier and the same was duly received by the Appellant and to establish such fact, the Respondents filed photocopy of PoD of the concerned courier company. Accordingly, they prayed for dismissal of the instant Appeal.
Heard the Ld. Advocates of both sides and carefully perused the material on record.
Sec. 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 reads as under:
(l) The District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (l), if the complainant satisfies the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period:
Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the National Commission, the State Commission or the District Forum, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay.
According to this Section, the threshold period for filing a complainant although has been set at two years from the date of cause of action, District Forum has been given due liberty to admit a complaint provided sufficient cause is shown.
It appears from the record that the Appellant filed a petition under aforesaid Section praying for condoning the delay of about 137 days in filing the complaint.
By such petition, the Appellant denied any knowledge about the purported repudiation letter of the Respondents dated 21-03-2012. It was further stated therein that there was a devastation at the factory premises of the Appellant on 18-12-2009 due to which properties worth crores of rupees got damaged and the factory could not function properly for more than two years. The Appellant further claimed that it could not locate the instant repudiation letter either at its Jhargram office or Kolkata office and thus, they followed up the matter with the Respondents vide letters dated 11-07-2011, 03-03-2012, 04-05-2012, 07-12-2012, 04-03-2013, 07-08-2013 and finally on 09-05-2014.
On due consideration of the respective submissions of the parties, it appears that somehow the instant repudiation letter dated 21-03-2012 got misplaced leading to the present imbroglio. Otherwise, the Appellant would certainly not court the Respondent for settlement of its claim vide afore-mentioned letters. In that case, the subject matter of relevant letters would revolve around questioning the rationale of such repudiation. Since an establishment receives scores of letters everyday, the possibility of misplacing of one or two letters, through not desirable, cannot be ruled out. We, therefore, feel that the Appellant does deserve benefit of doubt in the matter.
Thus, we are inclined to allow the Appeal.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the Appeal stands allowed on contest in part against the Respondents. The case is remanded to the Ld. District Forum for adjudication of the matter on merit. Parties are directed to appear before the Forum below on 11-01-2018.
