Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member
This Revision is directed against the Order dated 29-09-2016 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Kolkata-I (North) in C.C. No. 165/2015.
Factual matrix of the present Revisional application is that the Revisionist on notice appeared before the Ld. District Forum on 03-03-2016. On the prayer of the Revisionist, the Ld. District Forum fixed 26-05-2016 for filing WV as a last chance. As there was no quorum on the scheduled day, i.e., on 26-05-2016, the Ld. District Forum fixed 20-06-2016 for filing WV by the Revisionist. On that day, however, the Revisionist could not file WV for want of certain documents and accordingly, sought for further time to file WV and on its prayer, the Ld. District Forum fixed 02-08-2016 for filing WV as a special chance. On that day, the Respondent No. 1 filed a petition for amendment of the petition of complaint stating that the name of Dipan Kumar Ghosh was inadvertently written as Dipayan Ghosh and after due hearing, the Ld. District Forum allowed such amendment. On that day, the Revisionist made a verbal submission before the Ld. District Forum stating that copy of the WV was sent to the address of the Complainant by Speed Post, but the same got returned with postal remark, “Not known, addressee cannot be located”. In any case, on that day, in view of filing of amended complaint, the Revisionist again prayed for time to file WV. Acceding to such prayer of the Revisionist, the Ld. District Forum fixed 29-09-2016 for filing WV. It is stated that due to mis-posting in the diary, the conducting Ld. Advocate of the Revisionist failed to take step on that day. However, without appreciating the predicament of the Revisionist, the Ld. District Forum closed the opportunity of filing WV and fixed 07-04-2017 for final hearing. Claiming that the delay was wholly unintentional and beyond its control, the Revisionist prayed for setting aside the impugned order.
Heard the Ld. Advocates of both sides on the issue and perused the material on record.
Before we deal with the dispute, let us empathically state that the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1986 Act’) seeks to protect the ‘consumer’ of goods and services in every possible way. Given that this beneficial legislation aims at providing a speedy and inexpensive remedy, it is of paramount importance that any interpretation of the provisions of the 1986 Act and the rules framed thereunder would promote this objective of the enactment. Side by side, it is also important to keep in mind that the object of the constitution of a Tribunal is to provide speedy justice in a simple manner.
In Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, Volume I, published in the year 2001 (Edited by Wayne Morrison), it has been observed as under:-
“The fairest and most rational method to interpret the will of the legislator is by exploring his intentions at the time when the law was made, by signs the most natural and probable. And these signs are either the words, the context, the subject matter, the effects and consequence, of the spirit and reason of the law.”
A Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in R.M.D. Chamarbaugwalla & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr., reported in AIR 1957 SC 628 has laid down that in interpreting the statute the legislative intent is paramount and the duty of the Court is to act upon the true intention of the legislature.
In Anandji Haridas & Company Private Limited v. Engineering Mazdoor Sangh & Anr., reported in (1975) 3 SCC 862, the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down that as a general principle of interpretation where the words of a statute are plain, precise and unambiguous, the intention of the Legislature is to be gathered from the language of the statute itself and no external evidence such as parliamentary debates, reports of the Committees of the Legislature or even the statement made by the minister on the introduction of a measure or by the framers of the Act is admissible to construe those words.
Insofar as the whole dispute hovers around the fact of submission of WV, let us see the contents of the 1986 Act in this regard. Section 13(1)(a) of the Act reads as under:
“Procedure on admission of complaint - The District Forum shall, on admission of a complaint, if it relates to any goods,
(a) refer a copy of the admitted complaint, within twenty-one days from the date of its admission to the opposite party mentioned in the complaint directing him to give his version of the case within a period of thirty days or such extended period not exceeding fifteen days as may be granted by the District Forum”.
A plain reading of the aforesaid stipulation makes no bones of the fact that ordinarily the OP should be accorded a thirty days window to file WV and under compelling circumstances, at the sole discretion of the District Forum, the date of filing WV can be stretched further by another 15 days maximum. Beyond this, the District Forum cannot allocate a single day to the OP to file WV.
In the present case, we find that the Revisionist appeared before the Ld. District Forum on 03-03-2016 and since then on one pretext or the other, the Revisionist kept on seeking further time to file WV till 29-09-2016, when ultimately its prayer for further time for filing WV was turned down by the Ld. District Forum.
On the face of statutory stipulations, it is clear that the Ld. District Forum grossly erred in showing too much leniency towards the Revisionists by deferring the dates of filing WV in utter contravention of the provisions of the 1986 Act. It is true that the Respondent No. 1 on 02-08-2016, moved an amendment petition in order to rectify an error that cropped up in respect of the name of the Respondent No. 1 himself. However, the proposed amendment being purely technical, it could not be a valid ground for seeking further time for filing WV. Fact of the matter remains that its time for filing WV got lapsed long before 02-08-2016.
In any case, insofar as such turning down of the time prayer of the Revisionist for filing WV was in consonance with the 1986 Act, no fault can be attributed to the decision of the Ld. District Forum.
The Revision, thus, fails.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That RP/203/2016 be and the same is dismissed on contest. The impugned order is hereby affirmed. No order as to costs.