West Bengal

StateCommission

FA/996/2013

Sri Dipak Biswas - Complainant(s)

Versus

Indian Bank - Opp.Party(s)

In-Person

22 May 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
WEST BENGAL
11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087
 
First Appeal No. FA/996/2013
(Arisen out of Order Dated 07/01/2011 in Case No. CC/974/2008 of District Kolkata-II)
 
1. Sri Dipak Biswas
S/o Late Mohini Mohon Biswas, 146, S.P. Mukherjee Road, P.S. Kalighat, Kolkata - 700 026.
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. Indian Bank
3/1, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata - 700 001.
2. Indian Bank
Treasury Department, P.B. No. -354, Sir P.M. Road, Fort, Mumbai - 400 001.
3. The Chief Manager, Customer Service Cell, Indian Bank
66, Rajaji Salai, Chennai - 600 001, Tamil Nadu.
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KALIDAS MUKHERJEE PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. MRIDULA ROY MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. TARAPADA GANGOPADHYAY MEMBER
 
For the Appellant:In-Person, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. S. K. Sengupta, Advocate
ORDER

22/05/15

 

HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. KALIDAS MUKHERJEE, PRESIDENT

           

                This order relates to hearing on the petition for condonation of delay of 941 days in filing this Appeal.

 

            It has been stated in the petition for condonation of delay that the impugned judgment was delivered by the Learned District Forum, Kolkata, Unit-II in case no.CC 974 of 2008 on 21/11/08 dismissing the complaint.  The Appellant/Complainant being a layman conducted the case at his own cost and was not aware of the legal procedure regarding preferring Appeal or its period of limitation.  The Complainant was mentally disturbed due to the serious illness of his daughter who has been suffering from cancer.

 

            The Appellant in person has submitted that the delay was not intentional and having regard to the serious illness of his daughter the delay should be condoned. 

 

           The Respondent filed written objection against the petition for condonation of delay.  It has been submitted by the Learned Counsel for the Respondent that there was inordinate delay of 941 days which has not been sufficiently explained. 

 

            We have heard the submission made by both sides and perused the papers on record.  The complaint was dismissed by the Learned District Forum on 21/11/08.  The Complainant has stated in paragraph 3 of the petition for condonation of delay that he fell ill and was under treatment for several months.  That apart it has been contended that his daughter has been suffering from cancer.  On perusal of the records, we do not find any medical certificate or prescription in support of the contention of the illness of the Appellant or his daughter.  Such being the position, we are of the view that the inordinate delay of 941 days in filing this Appeal has not been sufficiently explained. 

 

            The petition for condonation of delay is rejected.  Consequently, the Appeal being time barred also stands dismissed.        

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KALIDAS MUKHERJEE]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MRS. MRIDULA ROY]
MEMBER
 
[HON'BLE MR. TARAPADA GANGOPADHYAY]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.