LAWS(CAL)-2024-9-34

S.S.CONSTRUCTIONS Vs. BIJAN PATUA

Decided On September 04, 2024
S.S.Constructions Appellant
V/S
Bijan Patua Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant civil revision application has been preferred against the impugned order dtd. 30/11/2023 passed by the Ld. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (for short NCDRC) in connection with First Appeal No. 801 of 2023 which was preferred against the orders dtd. 10/1/2023 and 12/6/2023 respectively passed by the Ld. Siliguri, Circuit Bench of West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short State Consumer Forum) in Consumer Case No. 11 of 2022. Further proceeding of that case pending before the State Consumer Forum, was placed ex-parte on the ground that none had appeared for the revisionist herein despite service of notice. Against this order the revisionist here filed a petition for vacating the order dtd. 10/1/2023 which was rejected by the State Consumer Forum vide Order dtd. 12/6/2023 on the ground that there was a statutory bar on the State Consumer Forum to review its own order. Thereafter, challenging the said order the revisionist preferred the aforesaid First Appeal being no. 801 of 2023 before the NCDRC which was rejected on the ground of limitation.

(2.) Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned order of NCDRC the revisionist has preferred the instant revision application with a prayer for direction upon the NCDRC to here the matter afresh on merit.

(3.) Ld. Counsel, Mr. Arun Kumar Sarkar, appearing on behalf of the petitioners has mainly canvassed his argument on the point of duration of delay which is negligible and has argued that the delay from the date of the order declaring the appellant ex-parte is 164 days and in case of subsequent order dtd. 12/6/2023, when the petition of setting aside the order of ex-parte hearing was rejected, the delay sought to be condoned boils down to only 13 days which is prayed to be allowed on the ground that the Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner failed to take steps on the date fixed for appearance due to diary mistake which is a bona fide mistake and not a deliberate one.