w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Tulsidas Karmakar Proprietor of M/s. Shukla Engineering Works Resident of Kamarpara (Bagdipara) & Bankura v/s Dr. Ranadeb Banerjee, Bankura

    S.C. Case No.FA/435, 436 of 2013 (Arising Out of order dated 10/05/12 in Case No.CC/04 of 2010 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bankura)

    Decided On, 07 March 2014

    At, West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. KALIDAS MUKHERJEE PRESIDENT
    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. M. ROY MEMBER & THE HONOURABLE MR. TARAPADA GANGOPADHYAY MEMBER

    For the Appellant: Sujata Mukherjee & Ld. Advocate. For the Respondent: Prasun Das, Ld. Advocate, Anirban Das, Ld. Advocate.



Judgment Text

Kalidas Mukherjee, President.

This order relates to hearing on the petition for condonation of delay of 309 days in filing this appeal.

It has been stated in the petition for condonation of delay that the judgment was delivered ex parte on 10/05/12. The Appellant was suddenly attacked with acute arthritis from 02/01/12 to 15/01/13 and, as such, could not file the additional W.V. nor could file the evidence-in-chief before the Learned District Forum.

It has been contended by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant that the delay was not intentional. The Complainant has filed a xerox copy of medical certificate towards his alleged illness.

The Learned Counsel for the Respondent opposed the petition for condonation of delay. It has been submitted that the notice was duly served upon the Appellant.We have heard the submission made by both sides and examined the materials on record. The Learned District Forum in the impugned judgment observed that the OP entered appearance and filed W.V. denying the allegation of the Complainant, but ultimately the OP did not come forward thereafter and for that reason the case was heard ex parte. The impugned judgment was delivered on 10/05/12. On 18/01/13 the certified copy was applied for and it was delivered on 21/01/13. It has been observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority reported in IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) as follows:

'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.'

Having regard to the materials on record, we are of the view that there was inordinate delay of 309 days and the Appellant herein in spite of appearing before the Learned District Forum and filing of W.V. did not con

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

test the case afterwards. The inordinate delay of 309 days in filing this appeal has not been sufficiently explained. The petition for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal being time barred also stands dismissed.
O R