DIRECTOR, THE RICE GROUP vs RANUSRI SAMANTA

This revision petition is directed against the order of the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata (''the State Commission'') dated 08.05.2017 dismissing the appeal preferred by the opposite party on the ground of limitation.

Briefly put, facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are that the respondent filed a consumer complaint alleging that he took admission in the opposite party institute for coaching for entrance examination of West Bengal Civil Services and other competitive examinations. The respondent/ complainant alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party filed a consumer complaint in the District Forum, North 24 Parganas at Barasat.

The consumer complaint was decided ex parte against the petitioner/ opposite party with the following directions: "That the case be and same is allowed on contest against the OP with cost of Rs.5000/- only payable to the complainant within one month from the date of this order. That the OP is directed to refund an amount of Rs.43,000/- only to the complainant within one month from the date of this order. That the OP is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- only to the complainant, as compensation for mental pain, agony and harassment, within one month from the date of this order.

That the OP is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- only to the State Consumer Welfare Fund, as compensation for unfair trade practice, within one month from the date of this order.

That is case of non-compliance of the order passed by the forum, the OP, is further directed to pay Rs.200/- per day from the date of this order till its realization, which shall be deposited by the OP to the State Consumer Welfare Fund. Let copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost when applied forc. It is pertinent to note that the judgment of the District Forum records that the OP had failed to put in appearance despite service of notice of the complaint nor the OP filed any written statement.

Being aggrieved by the order of the District Forum the petitioner has preferred an appeal however, the same was filed after the expiry of period of limitation with a delay of 884 days. Thus, the application for condonation of delay was also filed. The State Commission, however, dismissed the application for condonation of delay and consequently the appeal was also dismissed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the impugned order is not sustainable for the reasons that the State Commission has failed to appreciate that the consumer complaint was filed against a wrong person and petitioner was not served with the notice of the complaint. The petitioner came to know about the filing of the complaint and the impugned order passed therein only when the police officials came to arrest the opposite party in furtherance of the order passed in the execution proceedings. It is submitted that the State Commission has totally ignored the aforesaid facts, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. It is also contended that immediately on receipt of the notice of execution, the petitioner had moved an application for recall of the ex parte judgment, in the District Forum which has not been disposed of.

We do not find any merit in the above contentions. If the consumer complaint was filed against a wrong person and not the petitioner, then the petitioner does not have to worry and there is no order against him, and he can always take this plea in the executing court.

As regards the second contention, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Rajeev Hitendra Pathak & Ors. vs. Achyut Kashinath Karekar & Anr. reported in ( 2011) 9 SCC 541, t he fora below have no jurisdiction to recall its own order. Therefore, even if the application was decided the District Forum could not have recalled its own order. So far as the delay of 884 days is concerned, no cogent explanation for not responding to the notice of the complaint has been given. Therefore, we do not find any reasons with the impugned order of the State Commission dismissing the application for condonation of delay as also the appeal as barred by limitation. The appeal is therefore, dismissed.