Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

Aggrieved/Dissatisfied with the order dated 26-04-2017, passed by the Ld. District Forum, Kolkata-I (North) in C.C. No. 596/2014, whereby the complaint has been dismissed, this Appeal u/s 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is moved by M/s Tega Industries (SEZ) Ltd., Complainant.

In a few words, case of the Appellant is that on 12-04-2017, the clerk of the Ld. Advocate appeared before the Ld. District Forum.  However, the Ld. District Forum refused to note his presence and fixed 26-04-2017 for filing show cause.  Unfortunately, on 26-04-2017, due to traffic jam, the Ld. Advocate could not reach the Ld. District Forum in time.  Against such backdrop, the instant case was dismissed by the Ld. District Forum.

Heard the Ld. Advocates of both sides and perused the documents on record.

It appears from the impugned order that there was great laxity on the part of the Ld. Advocate of the Appellant to pursue the case properly.  Admittedly, on 29-09-2016, the Ld. Advocate did not turn up before the Ld. District Forum at all.  Thereafter, on 12-04-2017 also, he skipped the proceedings before the Ld. District Forum.  The objection of the Appellant notwithstanding, there was no infirmity with the decision of the Ld. District Forum to decline to note the presence of the clerk of the Ld. Advocate for the simple reason that he was not authorized by the Appellant to represent the company before the Ld. District Forum.  And lastly, as it appears, the Ld. Advocate did not reach the Ld. District Forum on 26-04-21017 in time despite being fully aware of the importance of his timely presence on that day.

It was incumbent on the part of the concerned Ld. Advocate to reach the Ld. District Forum by 10 o’clock.  Since hearing/show cause related matters are conventionally taken up at a later stage (generally not before 12/12.30 p.m.), it is hardly believable that the Ld. Advocate got stuck up in traffic jam for 2/2.30 hours.  No cogent documentary proof is furnished from the side of the Appellant to show that on that day, the city witnessed any abnormal traffic snarl at the morning hours itself.

Therefore, we are not at all convinced that there was no dearth of due diligence on the part of the Ld. Advocate of the Appellant. However, taking into consideration the fact that the interests of the Appellant would be highly prejudiced if we accord our stamp of approval to the decision of the Ld. District Forum although we are on the same page with it in this regard, in the interests of natural justice, we are inclined to allow this Appeal with cost.

The Appeal, thus, succeeds in part.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

The Appeal stands allowed on contest in part against the Respondent subject to deposit of cost with the Consumer Welfare Fund of the Ld. District Forum for a sum of Rs. 20,000/-. The impugned order is hereby set aside. Parties to appear before the Ld. District Forum on 09-03-2018.