Tripura

StateCommission

A/6/2019

Capital First Ltd. Represented by Manager Legal, Shri. Rajeev Ranjan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri. Aninda Narayan Chowdhury - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. Mridul Kanti Arya, Mr. Subir Baran Deb, Mr. Partha Saha

18 Mar 2019

ORDER

Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Agartala.

 

 

 

Case No.A.6.2019

 

  1. Capital First Ltd.,

Represented by Manager Legal,

Shri Rajeev Ranjan,

6th Floor, Block -B,

Appejoy House, 15 Park Street, Kolkata,

West Bengal, Pin: 700016.

         … … … … Appellant/Opposite Party.

 

 

  1. Sri Aninda Narayan Chowdhury,

S/o Late Anjan Chowdhury,

Parvati Villa, Palace Compound,

Jagannath Bari Road, P.O. Agartala, 

P.S. West Agartala, District: West Tripura,

Pin: 799001.

… … … … … Respondent/Complainant.

 

 

 

Present

 

Hon’ble Mr. Justice U.B. Saha

President,

State Commission

 

Mr. Narayan Ch. Sharma,

Member,

State Commission

 

Dr. Chhanda Bhattacharyya,

Member,

State Commission

 

 

 

 

For the Appellant:                                         Mr. Mridul Kanti Arya, Adv.

For the Respondent:                                      Mr. Debesh Chandra Roy, Adv.

Date of Hearing and Delivery of Judgment: 18.03.2019.

 

 

J U D G M E N T [O R A L]

 

U.B. Saha,J,

The instant appeal is filed against the judgment dated 19.09.2018 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (hereinafter referred to as District Forum), West Tripura, Agartala in Case No. C.C.06 of 2018 whereby and whereunder the learned District Forum directed the appellant, Capital First Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as opposite party) to pay the respondent (hereinafter referred to as petitioner) compensation amounting to Rs.25,000/- for deficiency in service and Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation, in total Rs.30,000/-. If the amount is not paid within two months, it will carry interest @ 9% per annum.

The aforesaid appeal is filed along with an application seeking condonation of delay of 133 days in preferring the appeal.      

  1. Today is fixed for order on condonation petition.
  2. Heard Mr. Mridul Kanti Arya, Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant-opposite party, Capital First Ltd. as well as Mr. Debesh Chandra Roy, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-petitioner, Sri Aninda Narayan Chowdhury.
  3. Facts of the case needed to be discussed are as follows:-

The petitioner had submitted an application under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the learned District Forum stating, inter alia, that he had purchased one LG LED TV from Capital Electronics and paid an amount of Rs.7,000/- in cash as down payment and rest of the amount to be financed by the appellant-opposite party, Capital First Ltd. through his Axis Bank Account. Accordingly, payment of installments was completed in the month of February, 2016.  Petitioner at the time of purchase handed over the copy of PAN Card, -mail ID, Mobile number etc. to the appellant-opposite party. Thereafter, when the petitioner tried to purchase one TVS Scooty from TVS Finance, he was informed that he is a defaulter of previous loan from Capital First Finance i.e. appellant herein. When he made contact, that time appellant-opposite party stated that he was defaulter for the month of September, 2015 and he had to pay Rs.10,901/-. Rs.10,901/- was to be collected earlier. If it was not collected, it was the fault of the Finance Company as the Finance Company did not inform him anything regarding the said fact in time. Thus, the appellant-opposite party, the appellant herein, is at fault by their own conduct for non-collection of monthly installment from the petitioner’s Bank Account. Due to the fault of the appellant-opposite party, the petitioner sustained mental tension, agony, pain etc. for which the petitioner issued a demand notice through his appointed Counsel which was received by the appellant-opposite party on 25th January, 2018 and even thereafter also, the opposite party did not contact with the petitioner. Hence, he filed the complaint petition claiming compensation of Rs.22,000/- for deficiency in service and cost of litigation.

  1. Opposite party after receipt of notice though initially not appeared, but thereafter appeared on 26.04.2018 through its Ld. Counsel, Smt. Haimanti Roy Choudhury and sought for time to file written statement and the learned District Forum on 26.04.2018 passed the following order:-

“26.04.18-  Complainant filed hazira. Learned advocate for O.P. appeared and informed that original copy of VOKALATNAMA will be submit of (sic) the next date. O.P. is submit the W.S. To 15/05/2018 for W.S. by O.P.”

On 15.05.2018, no step was taken by the opposite party. The case was adjourned as the Learned President of the Forum was out of station. Case was fixed for written statement on 30.05.2018. On 30.05.2018, the opposite party again preferred time to file the written statement. The learned District Forum allowed time as a last chance and the case was fixed on 14.06.2018 for written statement by the appellant opposite party. On 14.06.2018, the opposite party failed to submit the written statement. Thus, the learned District Forum fixed the case on 29.06.2018 for evidence of the petitioner. On 29.06.2018, there was no step from the opposite party. Ld. Advocate for the petitioner had prayed time to give evidence. Time was allowed and the case was fixed on 16.07.2018 for evidence. On 16.07.2018, the petitioner filed the statement on affidavit, but no step from the opposite party. As the Learned President of the Forum was absent, the case was adjourned and fixed on 25.07.2018 for evidence. On 25.07.2018, petitioner was examined, but no step by the opposite party. Cross dispensed with thereafter, the opposite party did not appear before the learned District Forum and the learned District Forum heard the argument of the petitioner side and delivered the impugned judgment. Against which, the opposite party has preferred the present appeal along with the condonation petition as stated (supra).     

  1. In the condonation petition it is stated by the appellant-opposite party that the judgment was passed on 19.09.2018, and the copy of the judgment was received in the month of October. The appellant-opposite party then made contact with the ld. counsel and went to the chamber of the ld. counsel, but could not contact him as the ld. counsel was out of station for his professional work. Again on 01.11.2018, the appellant went to the chamber of his ld. counsel along with the certified copy of the said judgment for filing the appeal petition, but due to insufficient documents, the preparation of appeal petition along with its condonation petition was not done. After obtaining the said insufficient documents, on 10.12.2018, the appellant went to the chamber of his ld. counsel, found him out of station and the ld. counsel will come back only on 18.12.2016 (sic) and in this manner, there was delay of 48 days. Other ground is that, again on 19.12.2018, the appellant went to the chamber and showed all the documents to the ld. counsel. It is found that the one bank statement was missing and again the appellant asked the bank to issue the concerned document and the appellant got the copy of the bank document which was issued by the bank on 17.01.2019 and again the appellant went to the chamber of the ld. counsel on 18.01.2018 and in this manner there was a delay of 31 days and finally, there was a delay of 133 days.
  2.  The petitioner has filed the objection against the condonation petition and specifically stated that the delay is not properly explained, rather some of the contentions made in the petition are false particularly, the statement in Paragraph-4 that “on 10.12.18 the appellant went to the chamber of his Ld. Counsel and found him out of station and the ld. counsel will come back only on 18.12.16 and in this manner there was delay of 48 days which was totally unintentional.”
  3. Mr. Arya, Ld. Counsel while urging for condoning the delay as sought for and setting aside the impugned judgment would contend that the delay has been properly explained and the contention made in the petition is supported by an affidavit.
  4. Per contra, Mr. Roy, Ld. Counsel appearing for the respondent-petitioner has taken us to the record of the learned District Forum to show that on 10.12.2018 their Ld. engaged Counsel, Mr. Mridul Kanti Arya was very much present in the station and not only that, he appeared for the appellant-opposite party before the learned District Forum in Case No. Civil Misc (Review) 01/2018. Therefore, the contention made in Paragraph-4 to the effect that on 10.12.2018 the appellant went to the chamber of his Ld. Counsel and found him out of station and the Ld. Counsel will come back only on 18.12.2016 (sic) and in this manner there was delay of 48 days which was totally unintentional is false and fabricated, more so, fraud upon the Commission.
  5. We have gone through the contention made in the condonation petition as well as in the objection petition. According to us, the appellant has simply stated that the delay occurred due to non-availability of their Ld. Counsel and for missing of some bank documents, but nowhere stated that on which date the appellant-opposite party received the free copy of the judgment supplied to it except mentioning the month of October. It was the duty of the appellant-opposite party to explain the delay by giving details of the specific steps taken by them from time to time and to provide justification for the period of such delay.  The grounds stated are not only vague, but also false and contrary to the document available on the record and do not provide any cogent and convincing explanation for condonation of delay in filing the instant appeal. We have also gone through the record of the learned District Forum from which it appears that on 10.12.2018, Ld. Counsel of the appellant-opposite party appeared before the learned District Forum in Case No.Civil Misc (Review) 01/2018 arising out of C.C.06 of 2018 against which judgment the instant appeal is preferred. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has taken the view in Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), that the delay should be condoned only if appropriate explanation has been furnished for condoning the said delay. The Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as under:-

“It is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, for filing appeals and revisions in Consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the Consumer disputes will get defeated, if this Court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the Consumer Foras.”

For the reasons stated above, it is clear that there is no proper reason and justification for condoning the delay. We are of the opinion that the delay in filing the connected appeal has not been properly explained and the same is also not satisfactory. Accordingly, the condonation petition is dismissed and in consequent thereto, the appeal also stands dismissed. No order as to costs.

Send down the records to the Ld. District Forum, West Tripura, Agartala.

 

 

 

 

MEMBER

State Commission

Tripura

MEMBER

State Commission

Tripura

PRESIDENT

State Commission

Tripura

 

 

 

 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.