Dhiren Paul, "New Lakshmi Narayan Jewellers vs Mahammuda Begum

THE State Commission dismissed the application on the ground that there was delay of 478 days in filing the appeal before it. We have perused the application moved by the petitioner before the State Commission. The delay is explained in para Nos. 2, 3 and 4 of the application for condonation of delay which are reproduced as follows: "2. That all appellants were not served the summons of the case in accordance to law subsequently when the appellants through their engaged a lawyer made an application for praying for vacating the ex parte order of hearing prior to pronouncement of judgment on the grounds stated therein the same was not considered by the learned Forum below and the learned District Forum was pleased to pass an order on 21.6.2010 directing the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 as compensation with a direction to comply with the said order within one month from communication of the order. 3. That this order was not communicated to the appellants from the forum and they being ignorant of the Court procedure not aware how to proceed in the matter but subsequently when they received the summons of the case of execution in some time April 2011 he again contacted an Advocate and was advised to prefer an Misc. case for setting aside the order of ex parte but the same was dismissed on 27th July, 2011 as not maintainable, thereafter the petitioners were advised to prefer an appeal before the Hon ''ble Commission, it is pertinent to mention that thereafter the Appellants being now very poor and have no means to run their business only the appellant was able to communicate with Advocate and understand something little bit fell seriously sick and confind to bed as result in spite of obtaining certified copy on 5th August, 2011 could contact the learned Advocate Mr. R.K. Choumal at Kolkata whose address was provided at Bardwan Forum as the petitioner often he goes to the chamber of said Advocate and found his chamber under lock and key and on subsequent visit found that the building in which the chamber is situated was demolished except the chamber room of the learned Advocate however, with great problem and affronts found his residence address from the said locality and only thereafter could hand over the papers for filing the Appeal, therefore in the process of aforesaid process there is delay of 478 days. 4. That you petitioners humbly submit due to the aforesaid fact there is delay of 478 days in filing the appeal including the statutory period of 30 days and there is delay of 113 days of after obtaining the certified copy by the office of Forum below. "

IT is clear that the petitioners have taken contradictory stand. On the one hand, they were trying to get the stay order vacated and were aware of District Forum order dated 31.6.2010. On the other hand, they took more than 300 days in getting the certified copy, do not state about the free copy received by them. The date of knowledge starts from 21.6.2010. They had approached the District Forum before ex parte judgment was announced. This clearly shows the sheer negligence on the part of the petitioners. Again, ignorance of law is no excuse. The defence of poverty also does not come to rescue of the petitioners. It is strange that they were poor on 21.6.2010 but became rich when the further proceedings or the appeal before the first Court was filed. The position remains the same. It may be mentioned here the petitioners are the Jewellers who run the business under the name and style of "New Lakshmi Narayan Jewellers " in West Bengal. The story involving contacting their Counsel Mr. R. K. Choumal is not worthy of credence. Such like story can be created at any time. We are not impressed by the fragile excuse made by the petitioners. Consumer Protection Act is a special enactment and it requires to be very careful in respect of the limitation as the Act prescribes its own limitation. The following authorities go to embolden the case of petitioner: "In the celebrated authority reported in Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), it has been held that, ''It is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if this Court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the Consumer Foras ''. " "In Balwant Singh (Dead) v. Jagdish Singh and Ors., V (2010) SLT 790, Civil Appeal No. 1166 of 2006, decided by the Apex Court on 8.7.2010, it was held - ''The party should show that besides acting bona fide, it had taken all possible steps within its power and control and had approached the Court without any unnecessary delay. The test is whether or not a cause is sufficient to see whether it could have been avoided by the party by the exercise of due care and attention. '' [Advanced Law Lexicon, P. Ramanatha Aiyar, 3rd Edition, 2005]. "

THE case is clearly barred by time. We have also heard the case on merits. As per the complaint, the OPs are the reputed jewellers running their jewellery shop in the name and style of New Laxmi Narayan Jewellers at Chowkdhighi, Burdwan. Complainant No. 1, Mahammuda Begam entrusted with the OPs old ornaments weighing 120 g for making new design ornaments. Similarly Noor Jahan Begum, Complainant No. 2 had entrusted with the OP another 120 g old ornaments and Noor Jahan Begum, Complainant No. 3 entrusted 180 gms old ornaments for the same purpose. A receipt was executed. The petitioners assured them that they will make new design ornaments within three months. After three months, the OPs did not give the new ornaments. In the meantime, the village level meeting was held wherein is promised to pay price money of the old ornaments to the complainants. However, the new ornaments were not given. The complainants demanded Rs. 7,00,000 the cash equivalent to the old ornaments and compensation of Rs. 2,00,000. The original receipt executed by OPs was produced before the District Forum. The complaint was accepted. We find no force in the revision petition and the same is-therefore dismissed with costs in the sum of Rs. 25,000 which be deposited with the Consumer Welfare Fund established by the Central Government under Section 12(3) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as per Rule 10 appended to C.P. Act within three months after it will carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. till realization. The learned Registrar to see the compliance of order under Section 25 of C.P. Act. Revision Petition dismissed.