West Bengal

Jalpaiguri

RA/1/2024

THE MANAGER, Tata Motors Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

MUNNA SUKUL - Opp.Party(s)

Janmenjoy Ganguly

29 Oct 2024

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
JALPAIGURI
 
Review Application No. RA/1/2024
( Date of Filing : 28 Oct 2024 )
In
Complaint Case No. CC/35/2024
 
1. THE MANAGER, Tata Motors Ltd.
24 Bombay House Homi Modi Street, Mumbai 400001
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. MUNNA SUKUL
S/o Bijay Sukul At Vill. Mohitnagar PO Mohitnagar PS Kotwali District Jalpaiguri 735102
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. APURBA KUMAR GHOSH PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. DEBANGSHU BHATTACHARJEE MEMBER
 
PRESENT:Janmenjoy Ganguly, Advocate for the Appellant 1
 
Dated : 29 Oct 2024
Final Order / Judgement

The Petitioner (O.P. No. 3) is represented by the Ld. Advocate. Today is fixed for admission hearing.

Ld. Advocate of the O.P. No. 3 files this Review Application under Section 40 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 against the order dt. 29.07.2024 passed by this Commission.

Ld. Advocate of the Petitioner (O.P. No. 3) also files an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1963 and praying for condonation of delay for filing of the instant Review Application.

The case is taken up for hearing of Limitation Application first. At the time of hearing Ld. Advocate of the Petitioner submits that due to non-availability of the O.P. No. 3 who is posted at Mumbai Ld. Advocate was unable to sworn affidavit and that’s why delay is caused for filing of this Review Application. He further submits that the delay of filing of this Review Application is not intentional and the O.P. No. 3 being the Petitioner of this Review Application is intending to contest the original case being no. C.C. 35 / 2024.

Having heard, the Ld. Advocate of the Petitioner and on perusal of the condonation of delay in filing Review Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, it appears   that the grounds stated in the condonation of delay application is convincing and thereby delay is condoned.

The case is taken up for admission hearing of the Review Application. At the time of hearing Ld. Advocate of the Petitioner (O.P. No. 3) submits that the O.P. No. 3 had received the Summon on 21.06.2024 which is reflected from the order dt. 12.09.2024. It is also submitted by the Ld. Advocate that an order of ex-parte was passed on 29.07.2024 which is after completion of 39 days from the date of receipt of Notice and the O.P. No. 3 of the Original Case prays for a short date to file Written Version within 45 days  of receipt of Summon but the next date was fixed on 28.08.2024 for filing evidence of the complainant. It is also stated in the Application that on 12.08.2024 the O.P. No. 3 filed Written Version along with a prayer for vacating the ex-parte order by filing the put up petition.

It is further submitted by the Petitioner (O.P. No. 3) that they are intending to contest the Original Case being No. C.C. 35 / 24 and that’s why they have filed this Review Application so, that liberty is given to the Petitioner (O.P. No. 3) to contest the original case.

At the time of hearing Ld. Advocate of the Complainant ( of the Original Case) raised objection on the grounds that opportunities had been given to the O.P. No. 3 but the O.P. No. 3 has flouted the order of this Commission and he praying for rejection of the prayer of the present Petitioner (O.P. No. 3).

Having heard, the Ld. Advocate of both the side and on perusal of the order passed in the Original Record being Case No. C.C. 35 /2024 it appears that the present Petitioner has already filed the Written Version on 12.08.2024 and with intending to contest this matter they already  filed an application for vacating the ex-parte hearing order which was passed by this Commission.

However, the prayer was rejected by arising proper reasons. But at present the present Petitioner being the O.P. No. 3 of the Original Case being Of the C.C. NO. 35 /2024 is intending to contest the case he is given liberty to contest the original case being No. C.C. No. 35 /2024 as the Complainant of the original case has filed the Original Consumer Case claiming the awarded not against the present Petitioner (O.P. No. 3). But for  causing delay of the disposal of the original case being no. C.C. 35 /2024 cost of Rs. 2,000/- is imposed against the present petitioner (O.P. No. 3) and  he is directed to pay the same to the Complainant of the Original Case. On payment of the said cost of Rs. 2,000/- on the next date the ex-parte hearing order which was passed by this Commission in original case being NO. C.C. 35 /2024 will automatically be vacated and case be restored in its previous position and the present Petitioner will get an opportunity to contest the Original Case.

Let the Instant Review Application is disposed of and a copy of order be tagged with the Original Case being  no. C.C. 35 /2024.

Hence it is therefore,

                                       ORDERED

That, the instant R. P. No.  01/2024 is hereby disposed of imposing cost of Rs. 2,000/-  against the present Petitioner with a direction to pay the said sum of money to the complainant of the Original Case being no. C.C. 35 /2024 on the next date so fixed in C.C. 35 /2024.

The Office is directed to tagged this record with the Original Case being no. C.C. 35 /2024.

Let a copy of this Order / Judgement be given to the parties free of cost.

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. APURBA KUMAR GHOSH]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. DEBANGSHU BHATTACHARJEE]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.