AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ram Surat Ram Maurya, Presiding Member
Heard Mr. Rahul Arya, Advocate for the petitioners and carefully perused the record.
Above revision petition has been filed from the order of the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata dated 08.12.2022, passed in RP/107/2022, whereby the revision filed by the petitioners was partly allowed.
The complainants filed CC/336/2020 with the District Commission. Opposite Parties 1 & 2 filed an MA/280/2021, an application for dismissal of the complaint on the ground of limitation. The District Commission, vide order dated 21.06.2022 dismissed the application with the observation that the question of limitation cannot be adjudicated without producing relevant evidence and documents. However, the District Commission kept the question of limitation open with liberty to Opposite Parties 1 & 2 to agitate the same during final hearing.
Aggrieved by the order of the District Commission, opposite parties 1 & 2 filed RP/107/2022 with the State Commission. The State Commission, vide impugned order dated 08.12.2022 upheld the finding of the District Commission that the issue /question of limitation shall be considered at the time of final hearing. However, the State Commission observed that the MA/280/2021 filed with the District Commission be kept in abeyance, as the question of limitation was kept open by the District Commission. Aggrieved by the order of the State Commission dated 08.12.2022, opposite parties 1 & 2 have filed the present revision petition.
Counsel for the petitioners submitted that it is mandatory for the trial court to decide the issue of limitation first and only thereafter can proceed with the trial. The District Commission erred in admitting the complaint without deciding the issue of limitation. He relied on the judgment of Supreme Court in State Bank of India vs. B.S. Agriculture Industries (I) (2009) 5 SCC 121.
While dismissing the application, the District Commission has given detail reasons and held that it is not possible to decide the issue of limitation without adducing the evidence by the parties. Even the State Commission has restored the MA/280/2021 filed by the petitioners. So far as judgment B.S. Agriculture Industries (supra) is concerned, this judgment is distinguishable on facts as in that case the District Commission, State Commission and the National Commission decided the case on limitation as well as on merits. In the present case, the issue of limitation as well as consumer complaint both are pending. Issue of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact. Therefore, the Commissions below have decided to take evidence. There is no illegality or material infirmity or jurisdictional error. The District Commission is requested to decide the complaint expeditiously in accordance with law.
With the aforesaid observation, the revision petition is dismissed.