West Bengal

StateCommission

A/55/2024

MOUSUMI GOSWAMI - Complainant(s)

Versus

URBAN LAKES A SUGAM DIAMOND PROJECTS LLP - Opp.Party(s)

VINAY JOSHI

26 Apr 2024

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
WEST BENGAL
11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087
 
First Appeal No. A/55/2024
( Date of Filing : 13 Feb 2024 )
(Arisen out of Order Dated in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/61/2023 of District Howrah)
 
1. MOUSUMI GOSWAMI
41/7 KAIBARTYA PARA LANE P.O.- SALKIA P.S.- MALIPANCHAGHORA HOWRAH- 711106
HOWRAH
WEST BENGAL
2. AMIT GOSWAMI
41/7; KAIBARTYA PARA LANE; P.O.- SALKIA; P.S.- MALIPANCHAGHORA; HOWRAH- 7111106
HOWRAH
WEST BENGAL
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. URBAN LAKES A SUGAM DIAMOND PROJECTS LLP
2/5 SARAT BOSE ROAD UNIT NO. 48, P.O.-AJC BOSE ROAD P.S.- KALIGHAT KOLKATA- 700020
KOLKATA
WEST BENGAL
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT MANDAL PRESIDENT
 
PRESENT:VINAY JOSHI, Advocate for the Appellant 1
 VINAY JOSHI, Advocate for the Appellant 2
 
Dated : 26 Apr 2024
Final Order / Judgement

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT MANDAL, PRESIDENT

  1. This appeal has been filed against the Order No. 2 dated 23.03.2023 passed by the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Howrah ( in short, ‘the District Commission’) in connection with the Consumer Case No.CC/61/2023.
  1. Along with the appeal an application for condonation of delay has been filed by the Appellants.
  1. Office has submitted a report that this appeal has been filed with a delay of 282 days.
  1. Heard the Learned Advocate appearing for the Appellants on the application for condonation of delay and also carefully perused the record including the application for condonation of delay.
  1. In the application, the reason given for the delay in filing the appeal is that the mother of the Learned Advocate for the Appellant had fallen ill. As a result, the Appellants could not be able to file the present appeal in time. Therefore, the only cause shown for the delay is that the mother of the Learned Advocate for the Appellants fell sick. No supporting averments to establish such illness is filed. The Appellants have not also explained why they did not engage another Advocate in view of the illness of the present Advocate’s mother. Therefore, I am of the view that the cause shown is insufficient.
  1. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Ram Lal and Ors.  – Vs. Rewa Coalfields Limited, AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361 has observed as under :-

“It is, however, necessary to emphasize that even after sufficient cause has been shown a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a matter of right. The proof of a suffcient cause is a discretionary jurisdiction vested in the Court by S.5. If sufficient cause is not proved nothing further has to be done; the application for condonation has to be dismissed on that ground alone. If sufficient cause is shown then the Court has to enquire whether in its discretion it should condone the delay. This aspect of the matter naturally introduces the consideration of all relevant facts and it is at this stage that diligence of the party or its bona fides may fall for consideration; but the scope of the enquiry while exercising the discretionary power after sufficient cause is shown would naturally be limited only to such facts as the Court may regard as relevant.”

  1. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in another case of R.B. Ramlingam vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, 1 (2009) CLT 188 (SC), has stated that a court has to apply the basic test while dealing with the matters relating to condonation of delay, whether the Petitioner has  acted with reasonable diligence or not. The court has held as under :

“We hold that in each and every case the Court has to examine whether delay in filing the special appeal leave petitions stands properly explained. This is the basic test which needs to be applied. The true guide is whether the petitioner has acted with reasonable diligence in the prosecution of his appeal / petition.”

  1. In another case reported in (2011) 14 SCC 578 ( Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority ),  the Hon’ble Apex has held that the special nature of the Act has to be kept in mind while dealing with the special period of limitation prescribed therein.
  1. The Hon’ble court has further held 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 Fora.”

  1. In view of the above, I find no sufficient ground to condone the delay of 282 days. The present appeal is nothing but an attempt to abuse the process of law.
  1. The application for condonation of delay is accordingly dismissed.
  1. The appeal is dismissed being barred by limitation without being admitted.
  1. The appeal is, thus, disposed of accordingly.
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT MANDAL]
PRESIDENT
 

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.