S.S. CONSTRUCTIONS Vs. BIJAN PATUA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal impugns orders dtd. 10/1/2023 and 12/6/2023 passed by the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench, Siliguri (for short "the State Commission") in Complaint Case No.11 of 2022. Vide order dtd. 10/1/2023, the Opposite Parties (Appellants herein) were placed ex parte on the ground that none had appeared despite service of notice. Against this order, the Appellants had filed a petition for vacating the order dtd. 10/1/2023 which was rejected vide order dtd. 12/6/2023 on the ground that there was a statutory bar on the State Commission to review its own order.

(2.) I have heard learned Counsel for both the parties on IA 9933 of 2023 seeking condonation of delay in filing of this Appeal.

(3.) The grounds urged by the Appellants are that the counsel engaged in the Complaint could not appear before the State Commission on 10/1/2023 resulting in the order declaring them ex parte. Thereafter, it came to their knowledge in April 2023 that the date of hearing of the Complaint was fixed for 12/6/2023. It is submitted that the Appellant applied on 12/6/2023 for vacating the ex parte order. The same was turned down by way of the impugned order on the ground that the State Commission could not review its own order. The delay from the date of order declaring the Appellants ex parte is 164 days and in the case of subsequent order dtd. 12/6/2023 the delay sought to be condoned is 13 days which is prayed to be allowed on the ground that the delay was not deliberate. Learned Counsel has relied on Ashok Kumar vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., AIR 2023 Supreme Court 3622, Smt. Lachi Tewari and Others vs. Director of Land Records and Others, AIR 1984 Supreme Court 41 and Rafiq and Anr. vs. Munshilal and Anr., Civil Appeal No.1415 of 2981 decided on 16/4/1981.