West Bengal

StateCommission

RC/08/68

Chandra Prakash Prasad. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dr. Sarbajit Singh. - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. Asis Bhattacharyya.

06 Nov 2008

ORDER


STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION , WEST BENGAL.
BHAWANI BHAWAN (Gr. Floor) , 31 Belevedre Road , Kolkata – 700027
Revision Petition(RC) No. RC/08/68

Chandra Prakash Prasad.
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

Dr. Sarbajit Singh.
Dinesh Singh.
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. JUSTICE ALOKE CHAKRABARTI 2. SMT. SILPI MAJUMDER

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


For the Appellant :


For the Respondent :




ORDER

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.

No. 3/06.11.2008.

 

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI A. CHAKRABARTI, PRESIDENT.

 

Both sides are present through their Ld. Advocates.  Revision Petitioner files reply to the show-cause.  Cause shown appears to be satisfactory.

 

Heard the Ld. Advocate for the Revision Petitioner and the Ld. Advocate for the O.Ps.  The impugned order was passed when the Complainant was absent on repeated calls and the matter was lastly take at 12.45 p.m. and the Complainant having not filed questionnaire to the evidence of the O.Ps, the process of cross-examination was closed and the date was fixed for hearing argument.  The Ld. Advocate for the Petitioner states that the circumstances under which the order was passed was beyond control of the Complainant and necessary facts have been stated in Paragraph 17 of the application.  The Ld. Advocate for the O.Ps has agreed that the Forum was not at fault in passing the impugned order as the conduct of the Complainant was showing total laches and negligence and it is also on behalf of the O.Ps that though the Ld. Advocate for the Complainant did not appear on date concerned, the Complainant himself was present and, therefore, there is no explanation as to why the impugned order should not be allowed to stand.

 

Considering the respective contentions we find that though there was no irregularity in passing the impugned order but in the facts and circumstances as it appears that the Complainant was himself was present and, therefore, was having no laches and the Ld. Advocate for the Complainant appeared late, the Complainant should not be deprived of filing cross-examination and thereby making effective participation so that the matter can be decided on merit.  But in the facts and circumstances we are of the opinion that for the laches on the part of the Complainant’s Lawyer the O.Ps suffered prejudice and this should be compensated by payment of cost.  In the circumstances the revision petition is allowed and the impugned quashed and the Forum below may proceed with the matter granting one opportunity to the Complainant to file his questionnaire if the same is filed on the next date to be fixed by the Forum below and it is subject to payment of cost of Rs. 500/- to the O.Ps.

 




......................JUSTICE ALOKE CHAKRABARTI
......................SMT. SILPI MAJUMDER