HON’BLE MR. AJEYA MATILAL, PRESIDING MEMBER
Ld. Counsels for both sides are present.
Today is fixed for hearing on the Petition for condonation of delay.
Respondent files W/O.
Copy served.
The Petition for condonation of delay is taken up for hearing.
Perused the Petition for condonation of delay.
It submitted by Ld. Counsel for the Appellant although the impugned Judgment and order was passed on 29.12.2022 in CC/549/2018 by District Consumer Forum, Kolkata, Unit-III but the Appellant referred the matter for taking legal opinion. This was the reason for delay.
Ld. Counsel for the Appellant drew our attention in Para-e at page 93 wherefrom it appears he had several consultations with the Ld. Counsel concerned on several days.
In reply Ld. Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the dates of the Lawyers were consultedwere not mentioned in the Petition.
He also submitted that no affidavit has been cited for the Ld. Counsel concerned stating that he was consulted.According to him the Appellant did not take any action in the Trial Court accordingly. He referred to a decision of Supreme Court reported in AIR on-line 2019, Supreme Court 270.
Ld. Counsel for the Respondent referred three decisions.
He referred a decision-
“AIR online, 2019 SC501: :2019(12) SCC 218 relevant Paragraph 15”.
Paragraph 15 of the said decision runs as follow:-
“no effective steps were taken to pursue the complaint which was lodged against the then advocate.”
With such observation the Petition for condonation of delay was rejected.
Another decision is referred by the Ld. Counsel for the Respondent:-
“AIR 1998 Supreme Court, 2276: : 1998 AIR SCW 2177.”
It is referred in the aforesaid Judgment “At the relevant timeAdvocate General’s office was fed up with so many Arbitration matters pending consideration – Can hardly be said to be reasonable, satisfactory or even proper explanation of delay”
Another decision of “AIR 2019 Supreme Court 1423 : : AIR on-line 2019 SC 270”
“It is observed if the Appellant noticed that the Lawyer was not taking interest in attending to the brief in question, then they should have immediately engaged some other lawyer to ensure that the Appeal be filed in time by another Lawyer”.
It is submitted by the Appellant in reply that another in put of Opposite Party No.2, who is an authorized dealer, she was not in a position to prefer the Appeal.
Considering the factual scenario of the case submissions of the Ld. Counsels for both sides and the decision of law cited above we are of the view there is no merit in the Petition for condonation of delay.
Accordingly, the Petition for condonation of delay is rejected.
The impugned order and Judgment dated 29.12.2022 passed by DCDRC, Kolkata, Unit-III(South) in CC/549/2018 is upheld.
Let the copy of this order be sent to the DCDRC, Kolkata, Unit-III (South).
Thus, the Appeal stands disposed of.
Note accordingly.
