SRI SUBHRA SANKAR BHATTA, PRESIDING MEMBER

Order No. 08

All sides are present through their respective Ld. Counsels.

Today is fixed for passing order upon the application for condonation of delay filed by the Revisionists/Petitioners on 30^th November, 2022.

The case record is taken up for passing order.

Perused the contention of the delay condonation application filed by the Revisionists/Petitioners and the W/O thereto filed by Respondent No. 2 on 22^nd December, 2023.

Seen the impugned order dated 26^th October, 2021 vide order no. 10 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata-1(North) in connection with consumer complaint case no. CC/112/2020.

Seen also the materials available on case record.

Considered the submissions advanced by the respective parties to the Revision Petition on 9^th May, 2024.

By way of present application the Revisionists/Petitioners have prayed for condonation of delay of 398 days in preferring the present Revision Petition.  It has been contended that the Revisionists/Petitioners have preferred the present Revision Petition challenging the impugned order dated 26^th October, 2021 passed in connection with the complaint case no. CC/112/2020.  It has been clearly contended that the Revisionists/Petitioners could not file the Revision Petition within the stipulated period of limitation as prescribed under the law and that there was a delay of 398 days in filing the present Revision Petition.  It is the specific case of the Revisionists/Petitioners that owing to physical illness of the Petitioners` Ld. Counsel the Revision Petition could not be preferred in time.   Being dissatisfied with the conduct of the then Ld. Counsel the present Revisionists/Petitioners were compelled to appoint the present Lawyer to conduct the case.  The Petitioners` Ld. Counsel applied for obtaining certified copies of order/orders and other relevant documents on 20.10.2022 before the concerned Commission and received the same on 10.11.2022.  Thereafter, the Revisionists/Petitioners handed over all the relevant documents to the Ld. Counsel for the purpose of drafting the Revision Petition.  The Ld. Counsel drafted the Revision Petition in the 3^rd week of November, 2022 and subsequently the Revision Petition has been filed on 25.11.2022.  According to the Revisionists/Petitioners the delay in preferring the Revision Petition was unintentional and due to non-availability of the Lawyer and non-receipt of the relevant papers.  The Revisionists/Petitioners have prayed for condonation of delay on all such grounds.

On the contrary, Respondent No. 2 has contested the application for condonation of delay by filing written objection wherein he has denied all the material allegations as levelled in the body of the application.  It has been categorically contended that the application for condonation of delay is not at all maintainable in the eye of law as the said delay is intentional one.  It has been candidly contended that Respondent No. 1 instituted the petition of complaint being CC/112/2020 before the Ld. District Commission against the Revisionists/Petitioners and LICI.  Despite recalling of order dated 26.10.2021 by the Ld. Commission below the Revisionists/Petitioners and the Proforma Respondent did not pay the cost of Rs.600/- and were absent at the time of call.   The Revisionists/Petitioners were also found absent on 07.04.2022 and 10.05.2022 respectively without taking any step.  Ultimately, the Ld. Commission below was pleased to fix the complaint case for ex parte hearing.  The application of the Revisionists/Petitioners is totally misleading and misconceived one.  Proper explanation for such delay has not been given by the Revisionists/Petitioners.  According to the Respondent No. 2 the delay condonation application is liable to be rejected outright.

The delay calculation sheet prepared by the Office goes to indicate that the present Revision Petition was preferred on 30.11.2022 challenging the impugned order dated 26.10.2021.  Undoubtedly, the present Revision Petition was filed at a belated stage and beyond the stipulated period of limitation as envisaged under Act.  It is evident that the explanation as portrayed in the body of the delay condonation application cannot be and should not be taken into consideration.  There are intentional laches and negligence on the part of the Revisionists/Petitioners in preferring the appeal.  Moreover, the order sheet of the Ld. Commission below goes to establish that the Revisionists/Petitioners were not at all diligent in proceeding with the complaint case.  Such inordinate delay has not been properly explained.  The contention as highlighted in the body of the application is not at all trustworthy.  No satisfactory, cogent and reliable explanation has come from the end of the Revisionists/Petitioners for such inordinate delay in preferring the Revision Petition.

Considering all aspects from all angles and having considered the submissions of the respective Ld. Counsels and regard being had to the position of law we are constrained to hold that the grounds as assigned for such inordinate delay in preferring the Revision Petition have not been properly and satisfactorily explained.

In the result, the application for condonation of delay is liable to be rejected.

It is, therefore,

O R D E R E D

That the application for condonation of delay filed by the Revisionists/Petitioners on 30^th November, 2022 is rejected on contest but considering the attending circumstances without any order as to costs.

Thus, the delay condonation application stands disposed of.

In view of the above observations the Revision Petition being RP No. 143/2022 is dismissed being hopelessly barred by the law of limitation.

Note accordingly.