Today is fixed for hearing the revisional application on merit. The revisionist is present through Ld. Advocate. None appears on behalf of the Opposite Party. It appears from the record that the OP Madhbi Nag appeared on previous day personally and furnished a copy of judgment of civil appeal no. 10941 and 10942 of 2013 delivered by Hon’ble Supreme Court. The revisional application is taken up for hearing on merit. Heard Ld. Advocate of the revisionist.
Decision with reasons,
The revisional case in nut shell is that the complainant /OP Madhbi Nag files a consumer complaint before Ld. DCDRF, Coochbear bearing CC no. 58 of 2018 alleging negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the OP/Revisionist. The consumer complaint was admitted before Ld. Forum and the notice was issued asking the revisionist OP to file the WV. Revisionist/OP after receiving the notice secured their appearance before the Ld. Forum and prayed for an adjournment to file WV. But the Opposite Party/revisionist could not file the WV within 45 days and for that reason, Ld. Forum vide order dated 29/10/2018 was pleased to debarr the OP no. 1 and 2 from filing WV. Being aggrieved with this order this revision follows on the ground that the revisionist/Opposite Parties had prepared the written version in due time but the Ld. Conducting Lawyer was out of station for his personal reason and for that reason he could not file the written Version in due time and on 29/10/2018, a short adjournment was sought for on the part of the revisionist/Opposite Parties which was rejected by the Ld. DCDRF and decided to hear the case ex-parte against Opposite Party no. 1 and 2. This order according to them was harsh, harmful and prejudice to the interest of the Opposite Parties and for that reason they have preferred this revisional application. The complainant/Opposite Party of this revision after receiving the notice appeared personally and submitted a judicial decision and argued that the Ld. Forum has rightly passed the order to hear the case ex-parte as because the statutory period of limitation for filing the WV within 45 days was over and ld. Forum had no authority to go beyond the statute.
After hearing Ld. Advocate of the revisionist and after hearing valuable arguments of the Opposite Party on previous day, it appears to us that Ld. Forum had decided to hear the ex-parte and we know very well that the judicial Forum always encourage to adjudicate the dispute after giving fair chance to both sides for being heard. The statutory provision is also there to give the Opportunity to the Opposite Parties to file the written version positively against the consumer dispute within 45 days. If any party fails to avail the Opportunity of filing WV within 45 days, the forum lacks the jurisdiction to extend the statutory period of limitation for filing the WV. In that score Ld. Forum had no fault on its part in accordance with the Consumer Protection Act. Particularly, clause a of sub-section 2 of section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act. Ld. Advocate of the revisionist has referred some judicial decisions.
- Supreme Court of India in Civil appeal no 1083 and 1084 of 2016 in the case of M/S Vasin Vs M/S Grand Venezia
- D No. 2365 of 2017 in Reliance General Insurance Company Vs M/S Mampi Timbers.
Where Hon’ble Supreme Court has decided that it was Open to concerned Forum to accept the Witten statement filed beyond stipulated time of 45 days in an appropriate case on suitable terms including the payment of cost and proceed with the matter. He also referred another judicial decision of Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Dr. PB Mandal and Dr. Tripti Das in 2017 reported in 2017(3) of CPR, 310 where the time limit of filing written statement can be extended subject to payment of cost. The judgment filed by the OP in CA 10943 and 10944 of 2013 where the finding of the JJ Marchent case of Hon’ble Supreme Court was upheld and decided that the Forum could not go beyond the stipulated period of limitation of 45 days in filing the Wv and for that reason, the revisionist was rightly debarred from filing the WV as they could not file it within 45 days from the date of receiving the notice.
After going through all the relevant judgments referred herein this case delivered by Hon’ble Supreme Court and hon’ble national Commission, we find that in exception cases, the forum may extend the stipulated period of 45 days subject to suitable terms including the payment of costs. Here in this case, we find that Ld. Advocate of the revisionist engaged Ld. Advocate Bijoy Saha to conduct consumer complaint case on behalf of the revisionist who personally met with a road accident and for that reason, he could not file WV in due time and as a result the revisionist/Opposite Parties could not contest the case and said consumer complaint matter is still pending for disposal and in such a situation it will be better to allow the revisionist to contest the case by filing a WV in due time to be stipulated by this Commission subject to payment of cost and if such Opportunity is given then the Commission thinks it fit that the proper justice would prevail.
Hence, it is,
Ordered,
That the revisional application is hereby allowed on contest without any cost. The order of Ld. DCDRF, Coochbehar dated 29/10/2018 in CC no 58 of 2018 is hereby set aside. The revisionist are hereby permitted to file the WV within 15 days before the ld. DCDRF, Coochbehar in CC No. 58 of 2018 form the date of receiving the copy of order subject to payment of cost rupees 5000 to be paid by the revisionist to the complainant in CC no. 58 of 2018 before the Ld. DCDRF, Coochbehar.
Let a cOPy of this order by supplied to parties free of cost and also to be sent to the Ld. DCDRF, Coochbehar by E-mail.
