HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT MANDAL, PRESIDENT

1. This revision petition under section 47(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (in short, ‘the Act’) has been filed by the revisionist / petitioner against the order No. 10 dated 08.02.2024 passed by the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Nadia in connection with consumer case No. CC/54/2023 whereby the Learned District Commission was pleased to allow the petition filed by the complainant under section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 on contest without costs.

2. The respondent as complainant filed a petition of complaint being No. CC/54/2023 praying for the following reliefs :-

“that the complainant has been claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- (One lakh only) for compensation, mental pain and agony for extreme negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and the complainant also claim Rs.19,55,025/- for his original expenses which was received by the opposite party and complainant have also been claiming Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost and any other relief or reliefs which the complainant is entitled under the law and equity.”

3. Along with the consumer complaint the respondent / complainant filed an application under section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 praying for condonation of delay in filing the consumer complaint case under section 34 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

4. The revisionist / petitioner entered appearance in this case and filed a written objection against the said application under section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 filed by the respondent / complainant.

5. After hearing both the parties of the said complaint case the Learned District Commission was pleased to allow the petition under section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 filed by the complainant / respondent on contest without any costs.

6. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said impugned order the revisionist / opposite party has filed the present revision petition.

7. Heard the Learned Advocate appearing for the revisionist / petitioner at length and in full and also carefully perused the memo of revision petition and other documents.

8. Having heard the Learned Advocate appearing for the revisionist and on perusal of the record it appears to me that along with the petition of complaint the complainant / respondent filed an application under section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

9. It is specifically stated in the said petition under section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 that on 12.09.2018 the complainant / respondent and the revisionist / petitioner entered into an agreement for consultancy and restoration / renovation work of residential premises of the complainant as per the schedule property. The total deal was fixed at Rs.21,93,220/- (Rupees twenty one lakh ninety three thousand two hundred and twenty only). The complainant / respondent is a Govt. servant as a doctor for which he is stressed with his job. The revisionist / opposite party received Rs.19,55,025/- (Rupees nineteen lakh fifty five thousand and twenty five only) for that project. After the said agreement lockdown was declared in the year 2020 and 2021. As the complainant / respondent was in medical profession, he was busy in treating patients and subsequently his leg was broken twice in road accident and the leg of her wife was also broken.

10. In support of the case the complainant filed some medical papers to show that the complainant Dr. Pinaky Chatterjee was under the medical treatment of Dr. Sujit N. Nandi, Orthopedic and Dr. Sujit N. Nandi had advised him to take rest. The said medical papers also disclose that the complainant undergone different tests and investigations such as C T Scan, MRI of left knee which show that multi parts fracture is noted in patella.

11. It is also specifically stated in the said petition that there was no latches and negligence on the part of the complainant / respondent to file the present case in time.

12. Learned Counsel appearing for the revisionist / petitioner in support of his argument has relied upon the unreported judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in connection with Misc. Application No. 21 of 2022 in Application No. 665/2021 in suo motu writ petition (C) No. 3 of 2020. However, the facts and circumstances of the present case and the facts and circumstances of the above noted unreported ruling are not same and the above noted ruling do not strictly apply in the present case.

13. On consideration of the said petition I am of the view that the complainant has explained properly that he was prevented by sufficient cause from filing his case. Moreover, I am of the view that the Consumer Protection Act provides comprehensive protection of consumers against various unfair trade practices and sub standard goods / services. In such a situation, I am of the opinion that cause shown is sufficient. Delay in filing the application should be condoned.

14. Under this facts and circumstances and on consideration of the materials on record I am of the view that the Learned District Commission has rightly allowed the petition dated 05.06.2023 under section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 on contest without any costs.

15. For the reasons stated above I am of the opinion that the delay in filing the consumer case has been explained properly as required and the same is also bona fide.

16. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.

17. The revisional application is thus disposed of accordingly.