AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Taken up through video conferencing.
This petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in challenge to the Order dated 30.08.2019 of The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal in appeal no. A/165/2019 arising out of the Order dated 24.12.2018 of The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Barasat in complaint no. 235 of 2007.
Heard the learned counsel at admission. Perused the material on record, including inter alia the District Commission's Order dated 24.12.2018, the State Commission's impugned Order dated 30.08.2019 and the petition.
The complaint was filed in 2007. It was decided by the District Commission in 2015. On appeal filed by the opposite parties (the petitioners herein) the State Commission remanded the case to the District Commission for decision afresh in 2016.
The District Commission, in adjudication afresh, allowed the complaint in part, in 2018. Both sides were afforded opportunity before the District Commission, the matter was decided on contest.
The opposite parties preferred appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission dismissed the appeal in 2019.
The impugned Order dated 30.08.2019 of the State Commission is reproduced below:
Received the record on transfer from the Hon'ble First Bench of the Commission.
None appears for the Appellant when the record called on for hearing the application for condonation of delay. It reveals that on the last three consecutive days, the appellant did not take steps which indicate that the appellants have no intention to proceed with the appeal.
In view of the above, the appeal is summarily dismissed.
Evidently the appeal before the State Commission was filed with delay, no one appeared for the appellants (the petitioners herein) on the said date (30.08.2019), on the last three consecutive dates also the appellants had not taken any steps, as such the State Commission summarily dismissed the appeal.
This appears to be a clear case of non-prosecution. Sufficient opportunity has been provided by the State Commission to the appellants to conduct their appeal with the due and requisite diligence. The right to prefer appeal has concomitant responsibility of conducting it assiduously and professionally. It bears significance that the ideal normative period for deciding an appeal, as contained in Section 19A of the Act 1986, is 90 days of its admission.
We find no reason or persuasive ground to interfere with the State Commission's impugned Order. We may add that the complaint was filed in 2007, further procrastination in its final decision, by allowing an unreasonable and unpersuasive restoration, may in itself defeat the cause of justice, be unjust and non-conscionable.
The revision petition is dismissed.
The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to all parties in the petition within three days. The stenographer is requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.