ADITYA MUKHERJEE Vs. PAMPA BANIK & 3 ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order of West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata (in short, "State Commission") dated 7.12.2015 which reads as under :-

(2.) Learned Shri S.K.Ghosh, Advocate for the petitioner submits that the impugned order of the State Commission is not sustainable for the reason that absence of the respondent/opposite party on the date of hearing was unintentional. The opposite party was under the impression that his counsel would appear but the counsel could not appear as due to inadvertence he had noted wrong date in his diary. It is argued that it is well settled that the parties could not be penalized for mistake on the part of the counsel. We do not find merit in this contention.

(3.) On perusal of the impugned order, we find that the State Commission has noted that no one had appeared on the date of hearing and even on the previous three occasions. It is also apparent from the order that despite of the last opportunity given, the petitioner/opposite party had failed to file the written statement. From this it is evident that not only the opposite party had failed to put in appearance on 7.12.2015 but the opposite party also failed to file written statement, within the further time granted by the fora below.