West Bengal

StateCommission

RP/206/2017

Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dipak Khetan - Opp.Party(s)

Md. Bani Israe. Mr. Jayanta Kanjilal.

29 Jun 2018

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
WEST BENGAL
11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087
 
Revision Petition No. RP/206/2017
( Date of Filing : 04 Sep 2017 )
(Arisen out of Order Dated 08/08/2017 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/383/2016 of District North 24 Parganas)
 
1. Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd.
Head office -Ozone Manay Tech Park, 56/18 & 55/09, 7th Floor, Garvebhavipalya, Hosur Road, Bangalore -560 068, Karnataka, India.
2. Flipkart
Regional office Kolkata, STA, Car Service 5 Ratings, near Domestic Airport, Kolkata - 700 052.
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. Dipak Khetan
S/o Raj Kr. Khetan, 14/15, Bangur Avenue, Jamuna Apartment, 4th Floor, Block-C, W.B., Kolkata -700 055.
2. Amit Agarwal
S/o Satyanarayan, 68, Jessore Road, Diamond City North, Block-29, Flat no. 1E, Kolkata -700 055.
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. SHYAMAL GUPTA PRESIDING MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. UTPAL KUMAR BHATTACHARYA MEMBER
 
For the Petitioner:Md. Bani Israe. Mr. Jayanta Kanjilal., Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Biswas, Advocate
Dated : 29 Jun 2018
Final Order / Judgement

Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

This Revision is directed against the Order dated 08-08-2017, passed by the Ld. District Forum, North 24 Parganas in CC/383/2016.

Case of the Revisionists, in short, is that, although there was no dearth of diligence on their part to file the WV, unfortunately, turns of events, as stated in the Memo of Revision, stood in the way of filing the same within the statutory period of limitation for which the Ld. District Forum proceeded ex parte against them.  Claiming that such delay was totally unintentional, they prayed for setting aside the impugned order.

Heard the Ld. Advocates of the parties and gone through the documents on record.

On due consideration of the sequence of events that led to non-filing of the WV in time, it does seem to us that everything was not under their control.  In view of this and keeping in mind the law settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as Hon’ble National Commission in catena of pronouncements [Topline Shoes Ltd. v. Corporation Bank, (2002) (6) SCC. 33 relied upon], we deem it appropriate to accord due liberty to the Revisionists to defend their case before the Ld. District Forum for ends of justice, albeit with a cost.

The Revision, accordingly, succeeds in part.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

The Revision stands allowed on contest in part with a cost of Rs. 5,000/-, payable by the Revisionists to the Respondents.  The impugned order is hereby set aside.  Parties to appear before the Ld. District Forum on 31-07-2018 for payment of cost and submission of WV by the Revisionists.

 
 
[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.