| STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION | | WEST BENGAL | | 11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087 |
|
| |
| First Appeal No. A/78/2020 | | ( Date of Filing : 06 Feb 2020 ) | | (Arisen out of Order Dated 03/10/2018 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/263/2017 of District Kolkata-III(South)) |
| | | | 1. Smt. Alo Shikari | | W/o Lt. Naba Sikari, 38-G, Maharaj Tagore Road, P.S.- Jadavpur, Kolkata - 700 031. |
| ...........Appellant(s) | |
| Versus | | 1. Mr. Makhan Lal Ghosh & Others | | S/o Lt. Motilal Ghosh, 318/C, Prantik Pally, P.S. - Kasba, Kolkata -700 107. | | 2. Smt. Gitasree Dey | | W/o Lt. Paritosh Dey, K.M.C. Premises no.90, Sahid Nagar, P.O. Haltu, P.S. Garfa, Kolkata - 700 078. | | 3. Sri Priyatosh Dey | | S/o Lt. Paritosh Dey, K.M.C. Premises no.90, Sahid Nagar, P.O. Haltu, P.S. Garfa, Kolkata - 700 078. | | 4. Gopa Dey | | D/o Lt. Paritosh Dey, K.M.C. Premises no.90, Sahid Nagar, P.O. Haltu, P.S. Garfa, Kolkata - 700 078. |
| ...........Respondent(s) |
|
|
| |
| BEFORE: | | | | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT MANDAL PRESIDENT | |
| |
| PRESENT: | Mr. Atanu Seal,Kastury Das, Advocate for the Appellant 1 | | | | |
| Dated : 14 Aug 2024 |
| Final Order / Judgement | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT MANDAL, PRESIDENT - The present appeal has been filed by the appellant/complainant against the order dated 03.10.2018 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata Unit-III (in short, ‘the District Forum now the District Commission’) in connection with the Consumer Case No. CC/263/2017.
- Along with the appeal, an application for condonation of delay has been filed by the appellant/complainant. The Office has submitted a report that this appeal has been filed with a delay of 460 days.
- Heard the learned Advocate appearing for the appellant at length and in full.
- Perused the record, memo of appeal and the application for condonation of delay.
- Having heard the learned Advocate appearing for the appellant/complainant and on careful perusal of the record and the application for condonation of delay it appears to me that in the application the reasons for the delay in filing the appeal are that the appellant is suffering from knee injury and her normal movement was restricted by the Doctor of the city and the learned Advocate appointed by the complainant guided wrong instruction, as such, the complainant failed to file the appeal before this Commission in time.
- As such, the delay took place for 460 days and filing the appeal.
- On scrutiny of the record it appears to me that the judgment of this case was passed on 03.10.2018. Record also goes to show that the appellant has file two medical certificates to prove that the appellant was suffering from various ailments and her normal movement was restricted by the Doctor. But on scrutiny of the said two medical certificates it appears to me that the said two certificates do not bear any signature of the patient. Therefore, I hold that the said two certificates are not at all believable.
- As regards the another reason, the learned Advocate for the appellant misguided the complainant and complainant failed to file the appeal in time. I hold that though the learned Advocate misguided the complainant, in spite of of that complainant/appellant did not change the said Advocate to file the appeal in time. After expiry of long time, the complainant obtained the certified copy on 05.02.2020.
- Under these facts and circumstances, I hold that the reasons as stated by the appellant in the application for condonation of delay is not believable and acceptable.
- Therefore, the cause shown is not sufficient, convincing and believable.
- 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.” - 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 stand 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.” - In another case reported in (2011) 14 SCC 578 (Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority), the Hon’ble Apex Court 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.
- 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.” - In view of the above decisions and under these facts and circumstances, I find no sufficient ground to condone the inordinate delay of about 460 days. The present Appeal is nothing but an attempt to abuse the process of law.
- The application for condonation of delay is accordingly dismissed.
- The Appeal is, thus, dismissed being barred by limitation without being admitted.
- The Appeal is, thus, disposed of, accordingly.
|
| | |
| |
| |
| | | [HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT MANDAL] | PRESIDENT
| | | |
