Ankon Ray vs Drs Logistics Pvt. Ltd. & 5 Ors

This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Ankon Ray against the order dated 05.9.2018 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal, (in short 'the State Commission') passed in First Appeal No.274 of 2018, whereby the State Commission has condoned the delay in filing the appeal by the respondent No.1/opposite party No.1

2.Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner as a Government servant on his transfer availed the services of opposite party No.1/respondent No.1 for transporting his house hold luggage from Ahmedabad to Kolkata.The complainant received the goods in damaged condition.Accordingly, he filed a consumer complaint being No.546 of 2015 before the District Forum.Vide ex-parte order dated 30.11.2015, the District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties to pay Rs.90,500/- as compensation for repairing etc. When the complainant filed execution of this order of the District Forum, the opposite party No.1 preferred an appeal before the State Commission with delay.The State Commission vide its impugned order dated 5.9.2018 condoned the delay and being aggrieved the petitioner/complainant has filed the present revision petition.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at the admission stage.It was argued by the learned counsel that the opposite parties first appeared before the District Forum and raised objection regarding maintainability, however, later the opposite party No.1 purposely did not appear before the District Forum and the District Forum had to pass an ex-parte order. Even the appeal was not preferred by the opposite parties in time and the order of the District Forum became final.When the execution was preferred, the opposite party No.1 has filed the appeal before the State Commission with a delay of more than 600 days.The State Commission should not have allowed the application for condonation of delay as no specific ground has been mentioned in the application for condonation of delay or in the appeal.The only ground taken by the respondent No.1 is that their counsel did not inform about the disposal of the complaint case and therefore, the opposite party No.1 was in the dark.When the party was contesting the case, it was the duty of the contesting party to have monitored the case. Thus, there was no proper ground to allow the condonation of delay.However, the State Commission has allowed the condonation of delay of more than 600 days only at a cost of Rs.5000/-.The only purpose of opposite parties is to harass the complainant so that he may leave the litigation after being disgusted over the long period. Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act reads as follows:-

"15. Appeal. - Any person aggrieved by an order made by the District Forum may prefer an appeal against such order to the State Commission within a period of thirty days from the date of the order, in such form and manner as may be prescribed:

Provided that the State Commission may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of thirty days if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing it within that period."

From the above provision, it is clear that the State Commission has powers to entertain an appeal filed beyond the period of limitation if the State Commission is satisfied on the ground of delay.Thus, prima facie there seems to be no illegality in the impugned order passed by the State Commission.The impugned order does not take away the right of any party to argue the matter on merits.However, I agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that delay of more than 600 days has been condoned by the State Commission only at a cost of Rs.5000/-, which is very meagre. The State Commission should have atleast awarded Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as he has already spent money on execution of the order as the opposite parties did not comply with the order of the District Forum. Accordingly, it is ordered that the delay in filing the appeal stands condoned only at a cost of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant by the opposite parties instead of Rs.5,000/- awarded by the State Commission. Before passing this order no notice is being issued to the respondent/opposite party No.1 as the amount is very small and it will involve more expenditure for the opposite party No.1 if the opposite party No.1 attended the proceedings.Only for this purpose, if opposite party No.1 feels aggrieved from this order, this Commission may be approached.Accordingly, the revision petition no.3065 of 2018 stands disposed of.