STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. SACHINDRA NATH MISHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Revision Petition, under Section 58 (1) (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (for short "the Act") has been filed by the Petitioner against the order dated 22.07.2016 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal (for short "the State Commission") in MA No.69 of 2016 in Revision Petition No.7 of 2016. By the impugned order, the Revision Petition which was filed with a delay of 57 days was dismissed as being filed beyond the period of limitation and the application MA/69/2016 seeking condonation of delay was also dismissed.

(2.) It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the delay was only of 57 days and had occurred due to the fact that father of the learned Counsel, to whom the matter was assigned, was unwell and the learned Counsel was busy in attending to his father's his medical needs. On these contentions, it is submitted that the impugned order be set aside.

(3.) It is argued by the Respondent, who is present in person, that the Petitioner is just delaying the matter and misappropriating the public money and that they were well aware of the impugned order which was passed in their presence and they did not care to file the Revision Petition within limitation.