RATAN CH. BANIK vs DHANANJOY GHOSH

This revision petition has been filed by petitioner against order dated 20.2.2014 passed by Learned State Commission in FA No. 24 of 2012- Ratan Ch. Banik Vs. Dhananjoy Ghosh; by which appeal was dismissed in default.

Complainant/respondent filed complaint before District Forum and Learned District Forum vide order dated 7.9.2012 allowed complaint and directed opposite party/petitioner to replace amplifier with a new set of similar model or to refund Rs. 22,000/- with 9% p.a. interest and further allowed compensation of Rs. 3,000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 2,000/-. Appeal filed by opposite party was dismissed by Learned State Commission vide impugned order against which this revision petition alongwith application for condonation of delay was filed.

Heard Learned Counsel for petitioner and perused record.

Learned Counsel for petitioner submitted that delay of 180 days occurred in filing revision petition as certified copy of impugned order applied on 5.3.2014 was not provided to the petitioner and as application was misplaced, another application was filed on 15.9.2014 and copy was provided on 22.9.2014 and revision petition was filed on 17.11.2014. Learned Counsel for petitioner has also placed RTI information before me according to which Learned State Commission does not maintain record in proper form for supplying certified copy and further intimated that no certified copy was issued by State Commission from 1.3.2014 to 10.3.2014.

In such circumstances, it can be presumed that application filed by petitioner for certified copy was misplaced by the office and on filing subsequent application, certified copy was issued on 22.9.2014. After that revision petition was filed on 17.11.2014 and thus, revision petition filed within a period of three months, is within limitation. In such circumstances, alleged delay in filing revision petition stands condoned.

Learned Counsel for petitioner submitted that Learned State Commission dismissed appeal as none of the parties appeared before State Commission on 20.2.2014, hence, revision petition be allowed and appeal may be restored.

Perusal of revision petition reveals that on account of personal difficulty, Advocate on behalf of the appellant could not appear before the State Commission and appeal was dismissed in default. As appeal was dismissed in default on account of non-appearance of counsel for appellant due to personal difficulty, I deem it appropriate to allow revision petition and restore appeal.

Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and impugned order dated 20.2.2014 passed by Learned State Commission in FA No. 24 of 2012- Ratan Ch. Banik Vs. Dhananjoy Ghosh is set aside and appeal is restored at its original number. State Commission is directed to decide appeal after giving an opportunity of being heard to both the parties.

Parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 26.3.2015.