Sri Subhra Sankar Bhatta, Presiding Member
Order No. 09
1. Both sides are present through their respective Ld. Counsels.
2. Today is fixed for passing order upon the application for condonation of delay filed by the Appellant/Ramesh Chandra Roy on 28th October, 2022.
3. The case record is taken up for passing order.
4. Perused the contention of the delay application filed by the Appellant and the written objection thereto filed by the Respondent No. 1/Bank of India, Howrah Branch on 2nd February, 2023.
5. Seen the impugned judgment and order dated 25.03.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Howrah in connection with Consumer Complaint Case No. CC/240/2018.
6. Seen also the materials available on record.
7. Considered the submissions advanced by the respective parties to the appeal on 30th April, 2024.
8. On the strength of present application the Appellant, Ramesh Chandra Roy has prayed for condonation of delay of 181 days in preferring the present appeal. It is the specific contention of the Appellant that he engaged Ms. Shruti Roy Ld. Advocate to take necessary steps in the complaint proceeding being CC No. 240/2018 and the present Appellant/Complainant was completely dependent upon the acts of the said Advocate. It has been alleged that the engaged Ld. Counsel had no knowledge in the field of law specially in the Consumer Commissions. It has been also alleged that after the perusal of the impugned judgment and order said Ld. Counsel did not advise the Appellant/Complainant to prefer an appeal against the impugned judgment and order. Said Ld. Counsel advised the Appellant/Complainant to file an execution case after the non-compliance of the impugned judgment and order dated 25.03.2022 by the Respondent No. 1. Accordingly, one Execution Case being EA/08/2022 was filed by the Appellant/Complainant within time. Ultimately, the Appellant/Complainant filed an application on 23.09.2022 before the concerned Commission for obtaining certified copy of the impugned judgment and order and received the same on 29.09.2022. Thereafter, the Appellant/Complainant made contact with the Ld. Advocate Mr. Santanu Sanyal to prepare a draft memorandum of appeal. It is the further contention of the Appellant/Complainant that the Puja vacation was prevailing on and from 30.09.2022 and the normal official work of the Commission started on and from 11.10.2022. The Appellant/Complainant got the bank statement in respect of his loan account from the Bank of India, Shyambazar Branch on 14.10.2022. The draft copy of memo of appeal was prepared on 17.10.2022 but the Appellant could not file the same as he was in a bed ridden condition till 21.10.2022. On 22.10.2022 the Appellant/Complainant again made contact with the Ld. Counsel and got the draft copy of memo of appeal and the same was confirmed on 23.10.2022. Thereafter, on 24.10.2022 memo of appeal along with its annexures was finally prepared. It is also the case of the Appellant/Complainant that 24.10.2022 to 27.10.2022 were declared as holidays in the State of West Bengal. On all such grounds the Appellant/Complainant has prayed for allowing the present application otherwise the Appellant/Complainant will suffer irreparable loss and injury.
9. On the other hand Ld. Counsel representing Respondent No. 1/Bank of India, Howrah Branch has contested the present application by filing written objection wherein the Respondent/Bank has denied each and every material allegation as brought in the body of the application. It has been categorically contended that on being satisfied with the impugned judgment and order of the Ld. Commission below the Appellant/Complainant filed one Execution Application being EA No. 08/2022 which is still pending before the Ld. DCDRC, Howrah for disposal. Subsequently, the Appellant/Complainant flatly denied to accept the demand draft from the Judgment Debtor/bank. It has been alleged that the Appellant/Complainant has hopelessly failed to give the day to day explanation of such inordinate delay. On all such grounds the Respondent/Bank has prayed for outright rejection of the application with cost.
10. The delay calculation sheet prepared by the office of the Hon’ble State Commission goes to indicate that the present appeal was preferred at the instance of the Appellant/Complainant on 28.10.2022 i.e. beyond the stipulated period of limitation. It is evident that there was an inordinate delay of 181 days in preferring the present appeal. The office report further indicates that the impugned judgment and order was passed on 25.03.2022 but the application for obtaining certified copy of the same was filed on 23.09.2022. The Appellant/Complainant obtained the certified copy of the impugned judgment and order on 29.09.2022.
11. The explanation as portrayed in the body of the delay condonation application cannot be and should not be taken into consideration. There were clear laches and negligence on the part of the Appellant/Complainant in preferring the appeal. Admittedly, there was inordinate delay of 181 days. Moreover, the Appellant/complainant has totally failed to assign each day’s delay in a trustworthy manner. Such being the condition we are constrained to hold that the application for condonation of delay is liable to be rejected. No satisfactory cogent, reliable and trustworthy explanation has come from the end of the Appellant/Complainant for such inordinate delay.
12. In Para 10 of the delay condonation application the Appellant/Complainant has categorically contended that he was in the bed ridden condition till 21.10.2022 due to high fever with cold and cough. No medical certificate or prescription has come from the end of the Appellant/Complainant to prove the same.
13. 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 compelled to hold that the grounds for such inordinate delay in preferring the appeal have not been properly and satisfactorily explained.
14. Resultantly, the present application for condonation of delay is liable to be rejected.
15. It is, therefore,
O R D E R E D
That the application for condonation of delay filed by the Appellant/Complainant on 28.10.2022 is rejected on contest but considering the attending circumstances without any order as to costs.
16. Thus, the application for condonation of delay stands disposed of.
17. Pursuant to the above order the First Appeal being no. 262/2022 is also dismissed being hopelessly barred by the law of limitation.
18. Note accordingly.
