J u d g e m e n t

The revisional case in short is that the Ganpati Cellulars, the revisionist was the Opposite party No. 3 in Consumer Complaint case no. 17 of 2018 before the Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri and the Opposite party No. 1 Sri. Chandan Kumar who happened to be the original Consumer Complainant in that case. After receiving the notice of that Consumer Case, the revisionist, Opposite Party No. 3 appeared before the Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri on 18/7/2018. But the case was already posted ex-parte hearing on 31/5/2018. The revisionist then on 18/7/2018 by filing a written version, submitted an application before that Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri for setting aside the ex-parte hearing order dated 31/05/2018. But his petition could not be entertained by the Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri and being aggrieved with the said order, this revision follows with a prayer to set aside the order of the Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri dated 31/05/2018 in reference to CC No. 17/S/2018. The Opposite party of revision Sri. Chandan Kumar who happened to be the Consumer Compliant affects today through his Ld. Advocate who mentions before the Commission by citing a judicial decision of Ld. N.C.D.R.C., New Delhi in reference to FA No. 372 of 2017 and urged before this Commission that the Commission may allow the revision petition subject to sufficient payment of cost as condition precedent. Ld. Advocate of the revisionist canvassed his argument to the point that as per provisions of Civil Procedure code, the parties to a litigation has every right to ventilate his grievances in the judicial forum for fair justice. He further mentions that the revisionist wants to get opportunity for hearing in the Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri, by submitting the WV but the revisionist was debarred there which is unwanted and unauthorized in accordence with the law and against the principle of natural justice. So, the revision application should be allowed on merit and no unnecessary cost should be imposed upon the revisionist.

After hearing the Ld. Advocates of both sides and going though the orders of the Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri of deferent dates, it is found that on 2 to 3 days the Ld. Advocates of Siliguri Bar Association could not take proper steps before the Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri for the cease work of Siliguri Bar Association and on the other hand, Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri could not extend the period of submitting the WV beyond the statutory period of limitation.

However, for the ends of justice, the Commission thinks its prosper that the revisionist should get an opportunity to ventilate his point of argument before the Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri as the WV which is already kept in the record and due to some delay and latches on the part of the revisionist, he should be penalized by making payment of some cost in favour of Opposite party No. 1 of the revision.

O r d e r e d

Considering all aspect, the revision petition is hereby allowed. Subject to payment of cost of rupees Rs. 2000/- (rupees two thousand only) in favour of OP Np. 1.

The impugned order dated 31/5/2018 in reference to CC case No. 17/S/2018 of Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri is hereby set aside with a direction upon the Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri to allow the revisionist to contest the case on merit. Subject to realisation of the cost to be paid before the Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri on next date.

Fix 1/11/2018 for appearance before the Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri and to payment of cost of rupees Rs.2000/-(rupees two thousand only). On that day. The Stay order passed by this Commission is hereby withdrawn. Let a copy of Judgment be sent to the Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri by E-Mail and through special messenger.