Case nº First Appeal No. 774 Of 2016, (Against the Order dated 30/05/2016 in Complaint No. 289/2015 of the State Commission West Bengal) of NCDRC Cases, May 23, 2017 (case Kamala Roy Choudhury & Ors. Vs Subrata Das)
| Judge | For Appellant: Mr. Alok Mukhopadhyay, Advocate and For Respondents: Mr. Nadeem Sulaiman, Advocate with Ms. Sunita Guha, Advocate and Mr. Alish Majumdar, Advocate |
| President | Mr. Dr. B.C. Gupta,Presiding Member and Mr. Dr. S.M. Kantikar,Member |
| Resolution Date | May 23, 2017 |
| Issuing Organization | NCDRC Cases |
Order:
Dr. B.C. Gupta, Member
-
This first appeal has been filed under section 19 read with section 21(a)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 30.05.2016, passed by the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as ''the State Commission'') in Consumer Complaint No. CC/289/2015, filed by the present respondents/complainants, vide which, the right of the appellants/opposite parties/OPs to file written statement in the case was closed.
-
The impugned order dated 30.05.2016 passed by the State Commission reads as follows:-
"Both the parties are present through their Ld Advocates. Ld. Advocate for the OPs has submitted that written version is ready but due to non-availability of the OPs'', affidavit could not be done and as such prays for time to file written version. Such a submission could not inspire us. In view of the provisions of Section 13(4) read with Section 18 of the Consumer Protection Act and keeping in view the decision of three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court of India reported in 2016(1) Supreme 319(New India Assurance Co. Ltd -- Vs- Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd) no further time can be given after expiry of 45 days in any circumstances. Under compulsion, the case shall be heard on the decided ex parte.
Seen the report filed by Ld. Engineer Commission appointed in this case. Let it be made part of the record.
To 19.07.2016 for filing evidence on affidavit on behalf of the Complainant."
-
As admitted in the memo of appeal as well as during arguments before us, the appellant/OP failed to file the written statement within the time prescribed u/s 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The State Commission refused to grant them further time for filing the written statement beyond period of 45 days, relying upon the judgement of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in "New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hilli Multi Purpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd." [Civil Appeal No.10941-10942 decided on 4.12.15]. During hearing before us, the learned counsel argued that on 30.05.2016, the written statement was ready but could not be filed, because the lawful attorney of the appellants/OPs had to leave for Bhubaneswar on 26.05.2016 due to his son''s professional examination. The OPs requested the State Commission to grant them one more day to enable them to file the written statement, but the request was turned down. The learned...
To continue reading
Request your trial