24.09.2015

MR. TARAPADA GANGOPADHYAY, HON’BLE MEMBER

            The Revision Petitions bearing No. RP/140/2014, RP/141/2014, RP/142/2014, RP/143/2014, RP/144/2014, RP/145/2014, RP/146/2014, RP/147/2014 and RP/148/2014 having identical facts are taken up together.  The instant Revision Petition u/s 17(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been preferred by the OPs challenging the order dated 25.8.2014, passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, South 24 Parganas in Complaint Case No. CC/356/2014  admitting the Complaint Case, on the ground that it was admitted without considering the petition for condonation of delay u/s 24A(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as filed by the Complainant along with the Petition of Complaint, and also without allowing the OPs any opportunity of hearing in respect of the said Petition u/s 24A(2) of the said Act.

          Facts of the case, as appearing from the materials on records, are, in short, that before issuing any Notice upon the Revisionists/OPs in respect of petition for condonation of delay, as filed by the Complainant u/s 24A(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 along with the Complaint, the Complaint in question was ‘admitted’ by the Ld. District Forum without any observation about the disposal of the petition for condonation of delay,  and that after so admitting the Complaint,  a direction for service of Notice was given by the Ld. District Forum.

          It also appears from the Revision Petition in question that the Complainant also filed an amendment petition seeking amendment in the cause-title of the Complaint to the effect of incorporation of an additional address of the Revisionists/OPs, but the same was also allowed by the Ld. District Forum, by its order dated 25.9.2014, without service of the copy of the same to the Revisionist/OPs and also without any opportunity of hearing being allowed to the Revisionists/OPs as alleged.  Aggrieved by such orders the OPs have filed the present Revision.

          The Ld. Advocate for the Revisionists/OPs submits that the copy of the Order No. 2 dated 25.8.2014, being the impugned order, as available on records, exhibits that the Petition of Complaint in question was first admitted without allowing any opportunity of hearing to the the Revisionists/OPs in the matter of petition for condonation of delay which was filed along with the Petition of Complaint, and that direction for service of Notice was passed by the Ld. District Forum after such admission of the Complaint-Petition and thus, in violation of the settled principles of law to the effect that before admitting a Complaint the adjudicating body has to decide first whether or not the case is within time as prescribed under the Act.

          The Ld. Advocate further submits that similarly, the amendment petition filed by the Respondent/Complainant was also allowed by the Ld. District Forum, vide Order No. 3 dated 25.9.2014, without appreciating that the ‘Schedule’ of the amendment-petition is a sub-judice matter before the Hon’ble National Commission and without serving any copy thereof to the Revisionists/OPs, far less the opportunity of hearing being allowed to the Revisionists/OPs in respect of the said petition for amendment and thus, denying natural justice to the Revisionists/Ops.  The Ld. Advocate also submits that there was also dispute regarding territorial jurisdiction of the Ld. District Forum concerned in regard to the Petition of Complaint in question.

          The Ld. Advocate finally submits that in view of the aforesaid submission, the Revision-Petition should be allowed and the impugned order be set aside.

          On the other hand, the Ld. Advocate for the Respondent/Complainant submits that as the petition for condonation of delay was filed along with the Petition of Complaint, so the Ld. District Forum considered the petition for condonation of delay at first while admitting the Complaint and thus the Ld. District Forum did not commit any error in the impugned order.

          The Ld. Advocate further submits that the Notice in respect of the amendment petition in question was served on 15.9.2014 fixing hearing on 25.9.2014 when the Revisionists/OPs did not enter their appearance and hence, there is also no illegality in allowing the amendment petition by the Ld. District Forum.

          The Ld. Advocate also submits that as the Revisionists/OPs had the Project Office at P.S. Bishnupur, P.O. Sonarpur, Dist. South 24 Parganas, so the Ld. District Forum has territorial jurisdiction in respect of the Complaint Case in question.

          The Ld. Advocate finally submits that in view of the submission so advanced, the impugned order of the Ld. District Forum should be sustained, it being legal and proper.

          We have heard both the sides, considered their respective submission and gone through the materials on records including the copies of the relevant orders of the Ld. District Forum.

          Sequence of observations of the Ld. District Forum in the impugned Order No. 2 dt. 25.8.2014, as available on records, demonstrates that the Petition of Complaint was first admitted without any observation about the consideration of the Petition for condonation of delay,  and that after such admission of the Petition of Complaint, direction for issuance of Notice was given, suggesting thereby that the Petition of Complaint was admitted at first without observing anything about the consideration of the Petition for condonation of delay, and then Notice was served, which indicates that the Revisionists/OPs did not get opportunity of hearing in respect of the petition for condonation of delay.

          Similarly, Order No. 3 dt. 25.9.2014, related to amendment petition, also reveals that the amendment-petition was also allowed without giving any effective opportunity of hearing to the Revisionists/OPs and thus, in violation of the principle of natural justice.

          On the aforesaid facts and evidence on record we are unable to sustain the impugned order of the Ld. District Forum, which appears to have been passed ignoring the settled principles of law in respect of the matters concerned.  In view of our such conclusion in respect of the case on hand, we refrain ourselves from expressing our views on the other issues in the case.

          In the result, the Revision Petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the Ld. District Forum is directed to proceed with the case afresh after allowing the Revisionists/OPs effective opportunity of hearing in respect of hearing in respect of the petition for condonation of delay and to dispose of the case on merits and in accordance with the law.

          All the parties are directed to appear before the Ld. District Forum concerned on 14.10.2015.

          This judgment shall govern all other revision cases as mentioned above.