DEBASISH DAS & ORS. vs PUBALI SENGUPTA & ANR.

This revision is directed against the order of the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata (in short, "the State Commission,") dated 29.1.2016 in FA/178/2014 which reads as under: -

" Appellants are found absent when the record was called on for hearing. The materials on record reveals that both the respondents have passed away and to that effect the certificates have been filed. Those death certificates clearly indicate that the respondents have died on 12.12.2014 and 8.5.2014 respectively. The appellants undertook to file a substitution petition but unfortunately, the appellants are absenting themselves from taking any steps. In fact, in accordance with the provisions of Order 22 Rule 2 of C.P. Code, the appeal has already been abated.

On going through the materials on record, we find that one MA being No.178 of 2014 has been filed on behalf of the appellants with a prayer for stay of execution case being No.18 of 2014 arising out of consumer complaint No.169 of 2013 against which the instant appeal has been preferred.

Considering the above, the appeal has been abated. Consequently, MA No.178 of 2014 being devoid of merit stands rejected.''

Briefly stated facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are that the respondent/complainant filed a consumer complaint being DF case No.169/2013 against the petitioners/opposite parties in District Forum Muchipara, Burdwan, West Bengal. The complaint was contested by the opposite parties. The District Forum vide order dated 8.1.2014 held the opposite parties guilty of deficiency in service and ordered as under: -

" That the application U/S 12 of the C.P. Act is allowed on contest against the OPs. The OPs will pay the following amount to the complainant as under:

Rs.6,50,000/- being the payment of assured money as per agreement.

Interest @ 9% from 1.3.2012 to the date of payment.

Cost of harassments of Rs.10,000/-

Cost of litigation amounting to Rs.2000/-"

The opposite parties being aggrieved of the order of the District Forum preferred an appeal before the State Commission, West Bengal. During the pendency of appeal both the respondents/complainants passed away on 12.12.2014 and 8.5.2014 respectively. The petitioners/appellants when confronted with the said situation, undertook to file an application for bringing on record LRs of the late complainants (respondents in the appeal). The opposite parties despite of giving an undertaking to this effect failed to take steps and did not move application for substitution of LRs of said respondents. Not only this, the petitioners/opposite parties failed to appear on hearing dated 29.1.2016 before the State Commission. Confronted with the aforesaid situation, the State Commission passed the impugned order observing that the appeal filed by the petitioners stood abated and as a consequence the State Commission also dismissed the miscellaneous application filed by the petitioners seeking stay of execution of the order of District Forum.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the impugned order, if allowed to sustain, would result in grave injustice to the petitioners. He further contends that non-appearance of the petitioners on the date of hearing and their failure to move application under Order 22 CPC for substitution of LRs of the deceased respondents/complainants was unintentional and it has resulted due to the negligence on the part of the then counsel for the petitioners.

We do not find merit in this contention. Now-a-days it has become fashion to put the blame on the representing counsel in order to get relief from the superior courts. On reading of impugned order, it is evident that both the respondents/complainants had expired in the year 2014. The period of limitation for filing application for substitution of LRs is 90 days. But till 29.1.2016 no application for substitution of LRs was moved. Therefore, we do not find any jurisdictional error or infirmity in the impugned order of the State Commission holding that the appeal preferred by the petitioners stood abated and dismissed the application for stay of execution.

As the petitioner has failed to show any jurisdictional error or material irregularity in the impugned order, we do not find it a fit case for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Revision petition stands dismissed.