M/s. Anima Enterprise & Anr v. Arati Roy & 4 Ors

1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order dated 19-02-2016 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) whereby the application for condonation of delay of 73 days in filing the first appeal has been rejected and, consequently, the appeal was also rejected as time barred. The State Commission had not accepted the explanation given by the petitioners herein seeking condonation of delay. For ready reference the explanation given by the petitioners seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal is reproduced as below: 4. That the appellant/opposite parties is diligently pursuing the case before the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Barasat, North 24 Parganas remaining present on each and every day of hearing before the learned District Forum. That after hearing of the case before the learned District Forum the conducting Ld. Advocate of the appellant/opposite parties advised your appellant/opposite parties to contact him after a few days and he will intimate whether judgment has been passed or not by the learned District Forum.

5. That as per the advice of the conducting Ld. Advocate your appellant/opposite parties regularly contacted his learned Advocate but he kept on saying that the judgment has not been passed by the learned District Forum.

6. That your appellant/opposite parties came to know of the judgment from local whispering and when he contacted his learned Advocate he replied that he would have to search for before the learned District Forum an it is only on 18-08-2015 that the conducting learned Advocate of your appellant/opposite parties applied for the Certified copy of the judgment and order dated 27-05-2015 passed by the learned District Forum and handed over the same on 20-08-2015 to your appellant/opposite parties along with case brief.

7. That your appellant/opposite parties states that after received the said certified copy of the judgment and order dated 27-05-2015 passed by the Ld. District Forum at Barasat and case brief, she then contacted with another Ld. Advocate, Sri -2- Biswajit Banik who kept all the papers also took nearby 1 weeks and told your appellant/opposite party that he is not practicing before the State Commission and returned all the papers, documents, etc..

8. That, thereafter, your appellant/opposite parties contacted Sri Triloke Kanti Roy, Advocate for preferring an appeal before the Honble State Commission on 29-08-2015 by signing Vakalatnama and handed over all documents of the above noted case and said learned Advocate prepared the appeal and filed this appeal on 09-09-2015.

2. From a perusal of the aforesaid reasons given by the petitioner, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioner cannot be blamed for not filing the appeal within the stipulated period under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The explanation given was regarding the conduct of the local advocate and, therefore, a lenient view ought to have been taken.

3. We, accordingly, condone the delay of 73 days for filing the appeal before the State Commission and remand the matter back to the State Commission for deciding the appeal afresh in accordance with law on merits.

4. We request the State Commission to decide the appeal expeditiously in accordance with law preferably within a period of three months.

5. The revision petition stands disposed of. ......................J R.K. AGRAWAL PRESIDENT ...................... M. SHREESHA MEMBER