Order no. 8 dated 27/12/2018

                Today is fixed for hearing the revisional application . The revisionist is present through Ld. Advocate. The principle Opposite party Smt. Monalisha Das is represented by her husband Parivesh Kumar Das by a letter of authorization.

                The revisional application is taken up for hearing. Heard ld. Advocate of the revisionist as well as the authorized representative of principle OP no. 1, Smt. Monalisha Das. The factum of this case is that Smt. Monalisha Das, the OP np. 1 of this revision has filed a consumer complaint bearing no. 38/S/2018 against the oriental insurance company limited and others. Oriental Insurance company  after receiving the notice of this case recorded the appearance of oriental insurance company limited that is the revisionist before the Ld. Forum on 23/8/2018 and on that day the revisionist submitted a prayer for time and also to supply the copy of documents which were not attached to the copy of complainant at the time of serving the notice. The Ld. Forum has asked the consumer Complainant to supply the documents on that very date. The Documents was supplied to the OP no. 1 on that date that is the Oriental Insurance Company limited. And next was fixed for WV on 24/9/2018. 24/9/2018 observe casework on the part of the Local Bar Association and for that reason OP no. 1 could not take any steps. The case was adjourned till 1/10/2018. The revisionist again prayed for time on 1/10/2018 but the LD. Forum  rejected the time prayer and placed the matter for ex-parte hearing against revisionist/OP. Being aggrieved with this order, this revision follows on the ground that the Ld. Forum was misconceived regarding the  days of statutory period of 45 days and arbitrarily passed the order for hearing the case ex-parte. Being aggrieved with this order, this revision follows on the ground that the order of LD Forum was arbitrary, irregular and erroneous.

The principle OP of this revision Smt. Monalisha Das has contested the case. The revisional application is heard in presence of both sides. Admitted position is that at the time of issue notice upon the insurance company no document was attached with the notice, on 23/8/2018 the documents of the complainant was supplied to the Ld. Advocate of the revisionist that is Opposite party of consumer complaint case. So, the date of statutory limitation should be calculated from 23/8/2018 that is the date when the process of notice completes after handing over the necessary documents and not from the date of receiving the notice that is on 17/8/2018.

Thus, the order of Ld. Forum appears to be irregular, not vested with  the Law as because 45 days should be provided as statutory right of the Opposite party/Revisionist to file the WV. Since the date of receiving the copy of documents relied upon by the complainant to that case.

Therefore, the order of Ld. Forum dated 1/10/2018 seems to be irregular and erroneous in the eye of law. As such the impugned order should be set aside.

Accordingly, the revisional application is hereby disposed of in the following way.

Hence, it is

Ordered,

                That the revisional application be and the same, is hereby allowed on contest without any cost.

The impugned order passed by LD. DCDRF. Siliguri dated 1/10/2018 in connection with CC No. 38/S/2018 is hereby set aside. The revisionist is hereby asked to file the WV before the LD. Forum in CC/8/2018 within 15 days from the date of receiving the copy of order of this revisional case. Let a copy of this order be communicated to Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri through e-mail.

                The free copies of this order be supplied to the parties.