West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/33/2013

Sri Asit Manadal - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Station Manager, W.B.S.E.D.C.L. - Opp.Party(s)

19 Apr 2013

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                                                                                        

 Complaint case No. 33/2013                                                                                         

 BEFORE : THE HON’BLE PRESIDENT :  Mr. K. S. Samajder.

                                                      MEMBER :  Mrs. Debi Sengupta.

                                                      MEMBER :  Mr. Kapot Chattopadhyay.                        

   

            Sri Asit Mandal, S/o-late Mihir Chandra Mandal…………………..……...Complainant.

                                                              Vs.

      The Station Manager, W. B. S. E. D. C. Ltd., Manikpara  & Others.…………………Ops.

 

Order No.03                                                                       Dated:-19/04/13

                         

 

            Complainant files hazira. Today is fixed for admission hearing. Documents filed for the complainant today be kept in the record.

            A petition U/S-24-A of the C.P.Act has been filed by the complainant for condonatim of delay. So, at first, the said petition is taken up for hearing. Hd. Ld. Lawyer for the complainant perused the application U/S-24A of the CP Act, the petition of complaint and the relevant matters on record. Considered.

              In the present petition U/S-24A of the C.P. Act, the complainant has prayed for condonatim of delay of 36 day in filing the case within the prescribed period. The complainant deposited the quotation money on 10/02/11 and the Op. no. already gave electric connection to the sub-mersible pump of the complainant on 26/02/11 i.e. within 16 days. The complainant alleged of damage of crop during these 16 days. He has filed some photographs of the damaged crops.

            Now, the delay in filing this case is 36 days the complainant alleged that he was not aware of the legal position of getting relief and he came back to know about it form his ld. Advocate on 15/03/13.

                We are of the view that the ground is not much convincing. The alleged illiteracy or

Contd……………..P/2

 

- ( 2 ) -

ignorance of legal Provision of the complainant cannot be held to be proper and justifiable ground because the complainant was intelligent enough to take several Photographs of the alleged damage of crop. So, keeping about the future things in mind, he took photographs. Complainant’s such act shows his intelligent and as such the genuineness of claim of ignorance cannot be believed. Moreover well known is the legal provision is that ignorance of law is not a ground. We do not find that the complainant has been able to show properly and in a convincing way that there was Justifiable and cogent ground of delay.

                 Accordingly, the delay is not condoned and hence, the petition U/S-24A of the C.P. Act stands rejected. Consequently the case is not admitted being barred by limitation.  

           

                       Sd/-                                        Sd/-                                                  Sd/-

                   Member                                 Member                                          President      

                                                                                                                    District Forum

                                                                                                                 Paschim Medinipur.