NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/1716/2018

MADHUMITA WCHODHURY - Complainant(s)

Versus

LIC HOUSING FINANCE LTD. & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

MR. SURESH KUMAR MITRUKA, SANJIB DUTTA, SUPARNA SINHA & SIBANI CHAKRABORTY

15 Jul 2019

ORDER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
 
REVISION PETITION NO. 1716 OF 2018
 
(Against the Order dated 09/03/2018 in Appeal No. 943/2016 of the State Commission West Bengal)
1. MADHUMITA WCHODHURY
D/O. HIMANGSHU CHOWDHURY GREEN PARK APARTMENT FLAT NO. N/3, 3RD FLOOR, P.O. AND PS. PRADHAN NAGAR, SILIGURI SUB DIVISION,
DARJEELING-734003
WEST BENGAL
...........Petitioner(s)
Versus 
1. LIC HOUSING FINANCE LTD. & ANR.
JEEVAN DEEP BUILDING GR. FLOOR, SEVOKE ROAD, SILIGURI-734001
DARJEELING
WEST BENGAL
2. M/S. TARUN SANKAR SAHA,
REP. BY MR. SUKUMAR SAHA, AUTHORIZED COLLECTION AGENCY L.I.C. HOUSING FINANCE LTD. BINAY BADAL DINESH SARANI, NEAR KALU PAUL OLD HOUSE HAIDERPARA,
SILIGURI-734006
WEST BENGAL
...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. AGRAWAL,PRESIDENT

For the Petitioner :
Ms. Suparna Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondent :
Mr. Abhinav Ramkrishna, Advocate

Dated : 15 Jul 2019
ORDER

The present Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated 09.03.2018, passed by the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission), by which the First Appeal No. A/943/2016 filed by the Petitioner herein has been dismissed in default.

2.       I have heard Ms. Suparna Sinha, Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. Abhinav Ramkrishna, Learned Counsel Respondent, who has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the Respondents and perused the impugned order. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that on account of some communication gap, nobody had appeared on behalf of the Petitioner before the State Commission, which has strongly been opposed by the learned Counsel for the Respondents. He produced copy of the various orders passed by the State Commission beginning  from 17.10.2016 till 06.02.2018 to show that on 06.02.2018 the State Commission had directed the Appellant to show cause as to why the Appeal be not dismissed for non-prosecution fixing 09.03.2018, as on that day no one had appeared on behalf of the Petitioner Appellant and on 09.03.2018 the Appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution.

3.       Be that, it may, in order to do complete justice between the parties in my considered opinion it would be appropriate in the interest of justice that one final opportunity be given to the Petitioner to appear before the State Commission and take all appropriate steps so that the Appeal be decided on merits. I, therefore, set aside the order dated 09.03.2018, passed by the State Commission and restore the First Appeal No. A/943/2016 on its file and request the State Commission to expeditiously decide the matter in accordance with law, preferably, within a period of three months, from the date of filing certified copy of this order before the State Commission.

4.       The Petitioner shall not seek any adjournment in the matter and shall comply with all the formalities required to be done immediately.

5.       The Revision Petition stands disposed of with cost of ₹10,000/- to be paid to the Respondents.

 
......................J
R.K. AGRAWAL
PRESIDENT

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.