This appeal is directed Under Section 15 and 17, (1) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order no. 7 dated 10/09/2018 passed by the Ld. DCDRF, Siliguri in Consumer Case No 35/S/2018. The fact of the case in brief is that the respondent of this appeal Satyam represented by its proprietor Lokram Gupta filed a consumer complaint case before the Ld. DCDRF, Siliguri bearing no. 35/S/12018 against the appellant and others as Opposite parties. This appellant as OP no. 4 after receiving the notice of that case recorded his appearance through the Advocate on 27/7/2018 and prays for a time for filing WV on next date. The next date was fixed on 24/8/2018. On 24/8/2018, the OP no. 4 that is appellant of this case again prayed for an adjournment. Ld. Forum allowed time petition of appellant/OP no. 4 and asked him to file WV on 10/9/2018. On 10/9/2018 Siliguri Bar Association observed cease work in response to the Bharatbandh called by Political Party. On that date, Ld. Forum observed that Statutory period for filing WV on the part of OP no. 4 was over. Being aggrieved with this said order, this appeal follows on the ground that the Ld. Forum has committed an error in the said observation which was not vested in law and such order should be set aside in appeal. The consumer complainant M/S Satyam after receiving notice of appeal, has contested the appeal through Ld. Advocate Rathin Sarkar. The hearing of the appeal is completed today and the record is placed for passing the final order of the appeal.

Decision with reasons

After hearing the valuable arguments, canvased before this Commission by Ld. Advocate of the appellant as well as respondents, it appears to us that the appellant was provided the time by the Ld. DCDRF, Siliguri to file the WV on 10/9/2018. The appellant/OP no. 4 had the Opportunity provided by the Ld. DCDRF, Siliguri to submit the WV against the consumer complaint  on  10/9/2018.

It is also fact that on 10/9/2018 some political parties called BharatBandh and in response to the said Bandh, the Siliguri Bar Association took a resolution to observe cease work on that date and Ld. Forum was requested not to pass any adverse order as the lawyers attached to the Siliguri Bar Association would not participate in the judicial proceedings on behalf of their clients on that very date.

To the contrary of the said request of the Siliguri Bar Association, Ld. Forum has observed against the appellant that statutory period of filing WV was over on that date where the appellant could not get the Opportunity of filing WV on that very date as because his Ld. advocate being a member of the Siliguri Bar Association, was debarred by the resolution of his association not to take participate in the  judicial proceedings on that date. The documents produced in this appeal also speaks the truth that on the very next date that is on 11/9/2018, the appellant/OP no. 4 came before the Siliguri Court and his WV was notarized on that very date. But it could not be submitted on that date before the Ld. Forum as because Ld. Advocate conducting the case of the appellant was suffering in illness and ultimately WV was submitted on this particular case on 18/9/2018, though he was already debarred by the Order of Ld. Forum on 10/9/2018 in filing WV as because the statutory period of filing WV was over. Now the question is whether such observation of Ld. DCDRF, suffers from illegality or irregularity.

From the legal dimension, it is found that as 45 days was already over since the date of receiving the notice of consumer complaint case, the forum has got no jurisdiction to allow the appellant/OP no. 4  to file  WV after 10/9/2018. On the other hand the date 10/9/2018 could have been excluded in computing said limitation period as because the cease-work of local Bar Association was continuing on that date and in such a position the appellant/OP no. 4 had no scope to file the WV before the Ld. Forum. Ld. Advocate of the respondent at the time of argument by citing a judicial decision reported in CPJ 1 2016 where Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that Forum cannot grant time beyond 45 days for filing the written version. It is settled principle of law as well as the statutory provision in the Consumer Protection Act that after elapse of 45 days since the date of receiving of copy of notice of consumer complaint case, the Opposite Parties cannot file WV beyond the statutory period of  45 days. But here in this case the appellant/OP no. 4 was allowed by the Ld. Forum to file WV on 10/9/2018. On that very date the cease work was going on the part of the lawyers and as a result neither the appellant could find any opportunity to notarize his WV nor to file the same before the Forum on 10/9/2018 which was beyond the control of him and for that reason, he has lost an Opportunity of contesting a consumer complaint where he had no fault of his own and if we consider  his case for the interest of justice, then the Commission thinks it fit to allow the appellant to contest the case before the Ld. Forum by filing the WV and for that reason, the Commission thinks it fit that the appeal should be allowed so that this appellant/OP no. 4 can get an Opportunity of being heard before the Ld. Forum by filing WV and to contest the case.

Accordingly the appeal is hereby allowed on contest without any cost.

The Order no. 7 dated 10/9/2018 of Ld. DCDRF, Siliguri  in C case no. 35/S/2018 is hereby set aside. The WV which the appellant/OP no. 4 has already filed on 18/9/2018 in connection with that case is accepted by this order of this Commission in this appeal and Ld. Forum is requested to conclude the proceedings of the case after allowing the appellant/OP no. 4 to contest the case and dispose of the instant consumer complaint within a short span of time.

Interim order of stay, if any be recalled.

The Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost and also to be sent to Ld. DCDRF, Siliguri by E-mail.