HON’BLE MR. TARAPADA GANGOPADHYAY, MEMBER

This Revision u/s 17(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed by the OP No. 1 challenging the order No. 8 dated 6.1.2016 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, North 24 Parganas in C.C.Case No. 431/2015 condoning the delay of 42 days in filing the Complaint and admitting the Complaint concerned.      

The Ld. Advocate for the Revisionist/OP No. 1 submits that the Ld. District Forum passed the order impugned without application of judicial mind as the Ld. District Forum did not consider the objection by the Revisionist/OP No. 1 against the prayer for condonation of delay in question.

The Ld. Advocate continues that the Ld. District Forum wrongly condoned the delay despite non-mention by the Complainant of the date of visit to CMC, Vellore, as the Complainant had taken recourse to.  In this connection, reference is made to a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in V.N.Shrikhande Vs. Anita Sena Fernandes, reported in 2011 (40 CHN (SC) 187.

The Ld. Advocate finally submits that the condonation of delay in question was not proper and reasonable and hence, the order impugned should be set aside and the Complaint be dismissed for being time-barred.

On the other hand, the Ld. Advocate for the Respondent No. 1/Complainant submits that the order impugned was passed by the Ld. District Forum lawfully upon being satisfied about the satisfactory explanation for the delay of only 42 days in filing the Complaint Case concerned.

The Ld. Advocate further submits that it is apparent from the petition for condonation of delay accompanying the Complaint Petition that the delay was caused for medical ground and that the delay was not inordinate and hence, the Ld. District Forum did not commit any illegality in condoning the delay in the interest of substantial justice.

The Ld. Advocate adds that the Ld. District Forum rightly condoned the delay in question in consistence with the settled principle that substantial justice should be given preference over the technical consideration.

The Ld. Advocate concludes that in view of the aforesaid submission, the instant Revision Petition should be dismissed and the order impugned be upheld.

Heard both the sides, considered their respective submission and perused the order impugned and other materials on records.

It is well-settled in the case of condonation of delay that when substantial justice and technical consideration are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred over technical consideration.

It was neither the pleaded case of the Revisionist/OP No. 1, nor was any material available on records to show that the delay was intentional and that the Complainant had not acted bonafide.  Hence, the Complaint Case concerned was a fit case for exercise of discretionary power of the Ld. District Forum as conferred by the proviso to Section 24A(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  In this connection, reference is made to a decision under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Muneesh Devi Vs. Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd., reported in (2014) 1 WBLR (SC) 745, which was related to condonation of delay of 156 days.

Consequently, the instant Revision is dismissed and the impugned order is affirmed.  No order as to costs.

Both the parties are directed to appear before the Ld. District Forum concerned on 30.5.2017.