AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard. Delay of 61 days in filing of the appeal is condoned.
The appellant being aggrieved of dismissal of her consumer complaint case No.CC/251/2014 vide order of the State Commission, West Bengal dated 13.1.2016 has preferred this appeal. Relevant order of the State Commission is reproduced as under: - " None appears on behalf of the complainant. O.P. Nos.1 & 2 are present through their Ld. Advocate. Today is the date fixed for filing reply to show-cause as to why the complaint shall not be dismissed for non-prosecution. Several dates were fixed out but the complainant remained absent. Today also one appears on behalf of the complainant. Under the circumstances, we dismiss the complaint for non-prosecution."
Learned counsel for the appellant/complainant has submitted that the appellant is an illiterate lady who lives in faraway place village Kukradihi, district Birbhum, West Bengal. It is contended that the appellant had engaged a lady counsel to pursue her complaint and she was under the impression that the lady counsel will take care of the day-to-day proceedings of the complaint. The lady counsel, however, for the reasons best known to her failed to put in appearance before the State Commission as a result of which the complaint was dismissed for non-prosecution. It is submitted that for the professional misconduct of the counsel, a complaint has already been filed against the lady counsel Ms. Jayshree Saha before the Bar Council. It is argued that as the complaint has been dismissed for no fault on the part of the appellant, the interest of justice demands that it should be restored and matter may be directed to be decided on merits.
Shri Rabin Majumder, Advocate for the respondent on the contrary has opposed the appeal and submitted that the State Commission has rightly dismissed the complaint for non-prosecution because there was no appearance on behalf of the complainant for several dates.
We have considered the rival contentions as also the explanation given on behalf of the appellant. It is well settled that the door of justice should not be shut to the litigant unless there are specific reasons. The appellant is victim of the negligent conduct on the part of the counsel. Therefore, in interest of justice, we allow the appeal, subject to cost of Rs.10,000/- to be paid by the appellant to the respondents for the delay caused. Matter is remanded back to the State Commission with the direction to dispose of the complaint in accordance with law after giving due opportunity to the parties. We hope that the complainant will be more vigilant in prosecuting her complaint.
Parties to appear before the State Commission on 9.11.2016.
The amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited pursuant to the directions dated 3.5.2016 be released to the respondents.