Order No. 09
SRI SUBHRA SANKAR BHATTA, PRESIDING MEMBER
The instant Revision Petition has been filed at the behest of the Revisionists/Petitioners viz. 1) L&T Finance Service, 3/14, 3/15 K.K.Banerjee Road, P.O. & P.S. Berhampore, Murshidabad and 2) L&T Finance Service, 7th Floor, Technopolis, A Wing, Plot No. 4, Block BP, Sector V, Salt Lake, Kolkata ( who were Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3 respectively in original complaint case) under Section 47(1) (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the Respondents challenging the impugned order dated 07.09.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Nadia, Krishnanagar in connection with consumer complaint case No. CC/73/2022 whereby Ld. Commission below was pleased to pass the following order:
Order No. 05
Dtd. 07.09.2022
Today is fixed for filing W/V by OP No. 3 as last chance i.d necessary order.
Ld. Adv. For the complainant is present.
Ld. Adv. For the op no. 1 is present.
Ld. Adv. For the op no. 2 & 3 prays for adjournment for filing W/V.
Petition is taken up for hearing.
Heard both sides.
Case is run ex-parte against op no.2 as per order dtd.02.09.2022.
So, prayer for time for filing W/V on behalf of op no. 2 is misconceived and not maintainable.
On perusal of record we find that op no. 3 received the notice on 25.07.2022.
And today is the 45 day so, prayer for time for filing W/V on behalf of op no. 3 is rejected.
Case shall run ex-parte against op no. 3.
To 12.10.2022 for evidence.
Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the above order of the Ld. Commission below OP nos. 2 & 3 as Revisionists/Petitioners have preferred the present Revision Petition on the grounds highlighted in the body of the Revision Petition and prayed for allowing the Revision Petition after setting aside the order impugned.
In the body of the Revision Petition the Revisionists/Petitioners have contended that the impugned order is bad in law and passed without application of judicial mind; that the impugned order is not maintainable and liable to be set aside; that the Ld. Commission below erred in law in failing to appreciate that the Respondent/Complainant was guilty of suppression of fact; that the Ld. Commission below acted illegally in passing the impugned order on 07.09.2022 and fixed the next date for ex parte hearing against the OP nos and 3. Revisionist/Petitioner no. 1 herein was directed to file written version on 7th September,2022 by dint of previous order; that the Ld. Commission below failed to appreciate that owing to miscommunication between the Ld. Advocate and the authorised signatory of the Petitioner Company W/V could not be filed within the stipulated period. According to the Revisionists/ Petitioners they have a good prima facie case to face the trial and the balance of convenience lies in favour of the Revisionists/Petitioners. The Revisionists/Petitioners have prayed for setting aside the impugned order dated 07.09.2022 (vide order no. 5) otherwise the Revisionists/Petitioners will suffer irreparable loss and injury.
Ld. Counsel appearing for the Revisionists/Petitioners L&T Finance Services has vehemently argued that the present Revisionists/Petitioners (who were OP Nos. 2 and 3 in the original complaint case) will be seriously prejudiced and their interest will be jeopardised if the Revisionists/Petitioners are not allowed to contest the complaint case by filing their written version. Drawing our attention to the order sheets of the Ld. Commission below Ld. Counsel has strenuously urged that on 07.09.2022 Ld. Commission below was pleased to proceed with the complaint case ex parte against OP nos. 2 and 3 respectively on the very ground of expiry of the stipulated period for filing W/V. Ld. Counsel has also argued that the impugned order is beautifully silent regarding OP no. 4. According to the Ld. Counsel the impugned order was passed by the Ld. Commission below arbitrarily and whimsically. It has been further argued that the present Revisionists/Petitioners have a strong prima facie case to face the trial. Ld. Counsel has prayed for allowing the present Revision Petition after setting aside the order impugned.
To refute the above contention Ld. Advocate appearing for Respondent No. 1/Palash Kumar Halder has strongly argued that the complaint case has been dragging since 2022 and the present Revisionists/OPs wilfully and intentionally did not submit their W/V within the stipulated period of limitation despite availing several opportunities and consequently Ld. Commission below was pleased to proceed with the complaint case ex parte against the Revisionists/Petitioners. Ld. Counsel has also argued that the allegations as brought in the body of the Revision Petition are totally baseless, fabricated, manufactured, false and created with the ill motive of dragging the complaint case. He has further argued that the Ld. Commission below was absolutely justified in passing the impugned order and there is no illegality or irregularity in the said order. He has prayed for outright rejection of the Revision Petition with compensatory costs.
I have meticulously gone through the orders dated 02.08.2022, 02.09.2022 and 07.09.2022 respectively. Ld. Commission below was pleased to proceed with the complaint case ex parte against OP nos. 2 and 3 on the score of non-presenting the W/V within the stipulated period. By dint of order dated 02.09.2022 vide order no. 4 Ld. Commission below was pleased to OP nos. 2, 3, & 4 to allow time to file W/S and the next date was fixed on 07.09.2022. Admittedly, in the impugned order there is no whisper regarding the fate of OP no. 4 and the said order was beautifully silent on this score. Reasons best known to the Ld. Commission below as to how and in which manner the next date was fixed for evidence. Astonishingly, no rejection order to file the W/V by OP no. 4 was passed on that particular date. It is expected that the W/V ought to have been filed within the stipulated period as envisaged under the Consumer Protection Act. Considering the submission of both sides and regard being had to the position of law we hold and hold that an opportunity should be given to the Revisionists/OP nos. 2 and 3 to file their W/V before the Ld. Commission below. We also hold that the present Revisionists/Petitioners will certainly suffer irreparable loss and injury if the present Revision Petition is not allowed.
In this context, we can safely rely upon the decision reported in 2018(3) CPR 832(NC) Pranab Kumar Bhattacharya Vs DLF Home Rajapura Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Wherein Hon`ble National Commission was pleased to hold that the Written Version/Written Statement can be filed even after the expiry of statutory period on suitable terms and conditions including costs to the Complainant.
Thus being the position we constrained to hold that the impugned order should be set aside for the ends of justice and the Revisionists/OP nos. 2 and 3 should be awarded an opportunity to file their W/V.
We are not unmindful to give caution to the Revisionists/OP nos. 2 and 3 to the effect that they should be more careful and diligent to conduct the complaint proceeding in a serious manner in the near future.
Resultantly, the impugned order is liable to be set aside for just, proper and effective adjudication of the complaint case.
Consequently, the Revision Petition succeeds and the impugned order certainly deserves interference of this Hon`ble State Commission.
It is, therefore,
O R D E R E D
That the present Revision Petition being no. 147/2022 be and the same is allowed on contest against Respondent No. 1 and ex parte against the rest subject to payment of cost of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) payable to Respondent No. 1/Complainant by the Revisionists/OP nos. 1 and 2 , L & Finance Services.
That the impugned order dated 07.09.2022 passed by the Ld. Commission below in Consumer Complaint case No. 73/2022 is hereby set aside.
Revisionists/OP nos. 1 and 2 are directed to submit their W/V positively on 31.01.2024 in the complaint case. Ld. Commission below is directed to accept the W/V if the same is filed on the stipulated date as mentioned above.
Both sides to this Revision Petition are directed to appear before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Nadia, Krishnanagar on 31.01.2024 for receiving further order and orders. Ld Commission below is further directed to dispose of the complaint case as expeditiously as possible.
Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the Ld. Commission below at once for information and taking necessary action.
Interim stay, if any, be vacated forthwith.
Thus, the Revision Petition stands disposed of.
Note accordingly.
