Consumer Complaint No.192 of 2016

Date of filing:27.10.2016                                                                           Date of disposal:03.11.2016

Complainant: Miss Rita Kesh, Karangapara, Durgapur-713201, Dist.-Burdwan.

-VERSUS-

Opposite Party: 1. Sri Biswanath Singha, Proprietor of Joy Bijoy Jewelers, A.C. Market, Hattala

                                   Road, Durgapur-713201, Dist.-Burdwan, West Bengal.

Present :  Hon’ble President: Sri Asoke Kr. Mandal

     Hon’ble Member :  Smt. Silpi Majumder

                  Hon’ble Member :  Sri Pankaj Kr. Sinha

Appeared for the Complainant:       Ld. Advocate, Aniruddha Bhattacharya.

Appeared for the Opposite Party:  None.

Order No.02, Dated: 03.11.2016.

            The record is taken up for hearing on the point of admission.  Heard Ld. Advocate for the complainant.  On perusing the record it appears that this case has been filed U/s. 12 of the C.P. Act with the prayer for an award directing the O.P. to pay Rs.3,00,000/- and to return the Gold Ornament worth Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant and also to pass further order as may deem fit and proper along with a petition U/s 24A of the C.P. Act, praying to condone the delay.  During the course of hearing  the Ld. Advocate for the complainant files a petition praying to permit the complainant to withdraw the case stating that the complainant is willing to prefer an appeal before the superior authority challenging the order dated 17.8.2016 passed in C.C. No.138/2016.  The Ld. Advocate for the complainant has admitted that on the self same allegation the complainant filed C.C. No.138/2016 but said case was not admitted with the observation that the case is barred by limitation.

            On scrutiny of the petition and the materials on record it appears that the complainant put her signature in Bengali but the petition filed this day has been signed by the complainant in English.  So, this Forum is not in a position to know whether the signatures of the complainant as shown in the complaint and as shown in the petition filed this day, are identical or not.  On repeated calls the complainant herself is found absent.  In the above premises the petition filed this day should not be accepted and it should be rejected.

            As once, the case filed by the complainant, was rejected on the ground of limitation, the complainant has no right to file the case on the self same cause of action and with the self same prayer.  So, the case should not be admitted allowing the petition for condonation of delay.  Hence, it is

Ordered

that the petition filed by the complainant today is rejected and the C.C. No.192/2016 is dismissed being  not admitted. 

Let the copy of this order be supplied to the complainant free of cost.

                      (Asoke Kr. Mandal)        

             Dictated and corrected by me.                                                           President       

                                                                                                                    D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan

                   (Asoke Kr. Mandal)                     

                           President

                   D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan

              (Silpi Majumder)                                                              (Sri Pankaj Kr. Sinha)

                    Member                                                                            Member    

            D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan                                                          D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan