Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

In this Appeal, the abovementioned impugned order has been assailed by Sri Asoke Kumar Das.

The case of the Appellant, in short, is that, in terms of the earlier order dated 25-04-2018 passed by this Commission in A/246/2017, the Respondent No. 1 was required to ensure due compliance of the modified order within 45 days from the date of passing of the said order; whereas, the Respondent No.1 sent the 3 nos. drafts through registered post on 26-06-2018 and the same was received by the Appellant on 27-06-2018.  Accordingly, the Appellant deserved due interest @ 9% p.a. over the total awarded sum.  However, as his prayer in this regard was turned down by the Ld. District Forum, aggrieved with such decision, he preferred this Appeal.

Notice was duly served upon all the Respondents.  However, only the Respondent No. 1 took part in this Appeal proceedings through its Ld. Advocate.  Besides hearing both sides present, we have also gone through the documents on record.

It is significant to note that the earlier Appeal bearing no. A/246/2017 was contested by all the concerned parties and the final order was passed in the open Ezlas in presence of the Ld. Advocates of the respective parties. 

That apart, the entire order was in public domain following uploading of the same in the Confonet website on the very day of pronouncement of the order. 

To our mind, in doing so, due compliance of the Rule 7(10) of the West Bengal Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 was ensured. We do not see eye to eye with the findings of the Ld. District Forum that merely because free copy of the order in question was not sent to it from this Commission, there was no scope for it to know the text, context etc. of the said award.

If we are to go by the spirit of the above mentioned Rule or that of Regulation 21(1) of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005, there can be no manner of doubt that the same was incorporated with a view to take the interested parties into confidence about the outcome of complaint/appeal proceedings.

That the Respondent No. 1, on its own accord on 27-04-2018, applied for certified copy of the impugned order only makes it palpable that it was well aware of the outcome of the said decision. Given that the full text of the said order was available in the Confonet website on 25-04-2018, if the Respondent No. 1 had due wherewithal, it could download the same from the website on that very day itself.

In view of this, it appears to us that there is enough merit in this Appeal and the Appellant deserves interest amount. 

Accordingly, the Appeal stands allowed.  The impugned order is hereby set aside. Parties to appear before the Ld. District Forum on 04-11-2019 for further order.