Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

Challenging the Order dated 05-02-2016 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Kolkata-I (North) in C.C. No. 07/2015, OP Nos. 1 & 2, M/s Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. has filed this Revision.

By such petition, it is contended by the Revisionists that on 05-02-2016, they attended the Ld. District Forum through their Ld. Advocate.  Since the concerned Advocate missed the call when the matter was taken up, the WV could not be placed before the Ld. District Forum.  By the time, such goof up was noticed, Ld. Advocate for the Respondent No. 1 had left the District Forum and as such, the Ld. District Forum refused to revoke its ex parte order.  Stating that the mistake was bona fide/unintentional, the Revisionists prayed for vacating the ex parte order.

Notice was duly served upon all the Respondents.  However, the Respondent No. 1/Complainant did not turn up to agitate the contention of the Revisionists.  Therefore, the matter was heard ex parte.

Be it mentioned here that the Revisionists have not filed copies of all orders passed by the Ld. District Forum relating to the case, but merely filed the impugned order for the reasons best known to them. 

In any case, on a reference to the Confonet website, it appears that on 18-03-2015, the Respondent No. 1 filed postal track report showing service of notice upon all the OPs of the complaint case, including these Revisionists.

In terms of Sec. 13(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, WV has to be filed within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of notice and such period may be extended by another fifteen days at the sole discretion of the District Forum.  Beyond this, District Forum is not authorized to stretch this period even by a single day, whatever may be the reason.  This being a statutory provision, it requires no emphasis that District Forum is duty bound to go by the rule book and there hardly remains any room for showing any leniency/relaxation towards the OP(s). 

However, it appears that the Ld. District Forum did not adhere to this statutory norm and allowed OPs to file WV till 05-02-2016.  On the face of it, there cannot be any room for any ambiguity that District Forum acted in contravention of its mandate under the Statute.  This is not permissible. When Statute prescribes something in crystal clear term, it is the sacrosanct responsibility of every Court of Law to ensure scrupulous adherence of such stipulation, lest it invades into the exclusive domain of legislatures.  The Hon’ble Supreme Court time and again advised Court of Laws to preach abandon care and caution so that they do not bestow unto themselves the mantle of legislators.  Since distorted interpretation of Statute is akin to re-writing the same, it is always advisable to stay away from such misdemeanour. The Ld. District Forum is hereby cautioned to remain extremely vigilant in this regard so as to prevent recurrence of such flagrant illegality in future. 

While the statutory time frame of filing WV got over long ago, the decision of the Ld. District Forum to fix the matter ex parte against the Revisionists appears to be perfectly in order and as such, the impugned order does not warrant our interference in any manner.

Revision, thus, fails.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

That the Revision stands dismissed being devoid of any merit.  The impugned order is hereby affirmed.  No order as to costs.