West Bengal

StateCommission

A/424/2023

M/S MOON ABASAN PVT LTD & ANOTHER - Complainant(s)

Versus

GEORGE GOMES & ANOTHER - Opp.Party(s)

DIBYENDU NANDI

28 Nov 2024

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
WEST BENGAL
11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087
 
First Appeal No. A/424/2023
( Date of Filing : 17 Nov 2023 )
(Arisen out of Order Dated 15/06/2023 in Case No. CC/66/2021 of District Nadia)
 
1. M/S MOON ABASAN PVT LTD & ANOTHER
62, LENIN SARANI, KOLKATA - 700013
KOLKATA
WEST BENGAL
2. SRI ASHIS GHOSH
62, LENIN SARANI, KOLKATA- 700013
KOLKATA
WEST BENGAL
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. GEORGE GOMES & ANOTHER
PERMANENT ADDRESS-NAGENDRANAGAR 4TH LANE, PO- KRISHNAGAR, PS - KOTWALI, DIST- NADIA, PIN - 741101 TEMPORARY ADDRESS - SOUTHERN PARK, PO- SARSUNA, KOLKATA - 700061
NADIA
WEST BENGAL
2. BINA GOMES
VILL- NAGENDRANAGAR 4TH LANE, PO- KRISHNANAGAR, PS- KOTWALI, DISTRICT-NADIA, PIN - 741101
NADIA
WEST BENGAL
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT MANDAL PRESIDENT
 
PRESENT:DIBYENDU NANDI, Advocate for the Appellant 1
 DIBYENDU NANDI, Advocate for the Appellant 2
 Varsha Roy, Advocate for the Respondent 2
 Varsha Roy, Advocate for the Respondent 2
Dated : 28 Nov 2024
Final Order / Judgement

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT MANDAL, PRESIDENT

  1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants challenging the impugned order dated 15/06/2023 passed by the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Nadia (in short, ‘the District Commission’) in connection with consumer case No. CC/66/2021.
  1. Along with the appeal an application for condonation of delay has been filed by the appellants. The office has submitted a report that this appeal has been filed with a delay of 110 days.
  1. Having heard the Learned Advocate appearing for the parties and on careful perusal of the application for condonation of delay and its written objection it appears to me that the appellants have stated the cause of delay in filing the appeal in paragraph Nos. 6,7,8,9 & 10 of the application for condonation of delay. The appellants in the said application have stated  that  non filing of the appeal within the specified time limit was totally unintentional and the Learned Advocate was not able to take any step as he was suffering from illness.
  1. Having heard the Learned Advocate appearing for the parties and on perusal of the record and the application for condonation of delay it appears to me that the impugned order was passed on 15/06/2023 and the appellants applied for certified copy of the impugned order on 10/10/2023 and the appeal has been filed on 17/11/2023. Moreover, I find that the appellants have not mentioned in the application for condonation of delay the name of the Advocate who was ill and was not able to take steps within time. Moreover, I find that the appellants did not change the said lawyer to file the present appeal within time though the alleged Learned Advocate was suffering from fever and cold in the month of August and September, 2023.
  1. Under these facts and circumstances, I hold that the reason as was stated by the appellants in the application for condonation of delay is not believable and acceptable.  Therefore, the cause shown is not sufficient, convincing and believable.
  1. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Ram Lal and Ors.  – Vs. Rewa Coalfields Limited, AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361 has observed as under :-

“It is, however, necessary to emphasize that even after sufficient cause has been shown a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a matter of right. The proof of a sufficient cause is a discretionary jurisdiction vested in the Court by S.5. If sufficient cause is not proved nothing further has to be done; the application for condonation has to be dismissed on that ground alone. If sufficient cause is shown then the Court has to enquire whether in its discretion it should condone the delay. This aspect of the matter naturally introduces the consideration of all relevant facts and it is at this stage that diligence of the party or its bona fides may fall for consideration; but the scope of the enquiry while exercising the discretionary power after sufficient cause is shown would naturally be limited only to such facts as the Court may regard as relevant.”

  1. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in another case of R.B. Ramlingam vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) CLT 188 (SC), has stated that a court has to apply the basic test while dealing with the matters relating to condonation of delay, whether the Petitioner has  acted with reasonable diligence or not. The court has held as under :

“We hold that in each and every case the Court has to examine whether delay in filing the special appeal leave petitions stands properly explained. This is the basic test which needs to be applied. The true guide is whether the petitioner has acted with reasonable diligence in the prosecution of his appeal / petition.”

  1. In another case reported in (2011) 14 SCC 578 ( Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority ),  the Hon’ble Apex has held that the special nature of the Act has to be kept in mind while dealing with the special period of limitation prescribed therein.
  1. The Hon’ble court has further held as under :

“It is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if this court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the consumer Fora.”

  1. In view of the above decisions and under this facts and circumstances, I find no sufficient ground to condone the inordinate delay of about 110 days. The present appeal is nothing but an attempt to abuse the process of law.
  1. The application for condonation of delay is accordingly dismissed.
  1. The appeal is, thus, dismissed being barred by limitation without being admitted.
  1. The appeal is, thus, disposed of accordingly.
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT MANDAL]
PRESIDENT
 

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.