| Revision Petition No. RP/41/2023 | | ( Date of Filing : 17 Mar 2023 ) | | (Arisen out of Order Dated 01/02/2023 in Case No. CC/197/2021 of District Kolkata-II(Central)) |
| | | | 1. Sri Anath Bandhu Paul | | S/o, Lt Sanjay Krishna Paul. 96A, Swinhoe Lane, P.O. & P.S.- Kasba, Kolkata- 700 042. |
| ...........Appellant(s) | |
| Versus | | 1. Smt. Priti Basak | | W/o, Gautam Basak. 106A, Kumar Para Lane, P.O. & P.S.- Kasba, Kolkata- 700 042. | | 2. Sri Ashim Kumar Paul | | S/o, Lt Bhairab Chandra Paul. 108, Kumar Para Lane, P.O. & P.S.- Kasba, Kolkata- 700 042. | | 3. Smt. Shyamali Paul | | D/o, Lt Bhairab Chandra Paul. 108, Kumar Para Lane, P.O. & P.S.- Kasba, Kolkata- 700 042. | | 4. Smt. Rina Karmakar | | W/o, Lt Pravat Karmakar. 106A, Kumar Para Lane, P.O. & P.S.- Kasba, Kolkata- 700 042. | | 5. Smt. Mina Paul | | W/o, Sri Swapan Paul. 106A, Kumar Para Lane, P.O. & P.S.- Kasba, Kolkata- 700 042. | | 6. Sri Goutam Paul | | S/o, Lt Gostho Behari Paul. 106A, Kumar Para Lane, P.O. & P.S.- Kasba, Kolkata- 700 042. | | 7. Sri Nemai Paul | | S/o, Lt Gostho Behari Paul. 106A, Kumar Para Lane, P.O. & P.S.- Kasba, Kolkata- 700 042. | | 8. Sri Raju Paul | | S/o, Lt Gostho Behari Paul. 106A, Kumar Para Lane, P.O. & P.S.- Kasba, Kolkata- 700 042. | | 9. Smt. Dipa Paul | | W/o, Lt Gour Paul. 106A, Kumar Para Lane, P.O. & P.S.- Kasba, Kolkata- 700 042. | | 10. Sri Suman Paul | | S/o, Lt Gour Paul. 106A, Kumar Para Lane, P.O. & P.S.- Kasba, Kolkata- 700 042. |
| ...........Respondent(s) |
|
|
| Final Order / Judgement | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT MANDAL, PRESIDENT - This revisional application is at the instance of the revision petitioner and is directed against the order No. 15 dated 01/02/2023 passed by the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata, Unit II (Central) (in short, the ‘District Commission’) in connection with complaint case No. CC/197/2021 whereby an application being No. MA/338/2022 praying for passing an order of opportunity to the Opposite Party No. 1 to contest the case was rejected.
- Heard the Learned Advocate appearing for the revision petitioner at length and in full. Also perused the materials on record.
- It is submitted by the Learned Advocate appearing for the revision petitioner that the Learned Commission below did not consider medical papers of the revisionist. He has further submitted that the Learned Commission below failed to consider the service of summon to the revisionist. He has further submitted that the revisionist had no knowledge regarding the complaint case being No. CC/197/2021 pending before the Learned District Commission below. So, the revisional application should be allowed and the impugned order dated 01/02/2023 passed by the Learned District Commission below should be set aside.
- Having heard the Learned Advocate appearing for the revisionist and on perusal of the record it appears to us that the respondent No. 1 as a complainant filed a complaint case being No. CC/197/2021 against the revisionist and others. The revisionist / opposite party No. 1 did not turn up before the Learned Commission below. As such, the case was proceeded ex parte against the revisionist / opposite party No. 1. Subsequently, the revisionist / opposite party No. 1 appeared before the Learned District Commission and filed an application being No. MA/838/2022 praying for passing an order to give opportunity to the revisionist to contest the case. The said application was heard and considered by the Learned District Commission and the said application being No. MA/838/2022 was rejected by the impugned order.
- Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order the present revision application has been filed by the revision petitioner.
- On careful perusal of the record it appears to us that the complainant duly sent notice to the revision petitioner and the revision petitioner did not accept the said envelope addressed to him rather the revision petitioner refused to accept the said envelope. As per section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 the said endorsement ‘Refusal’ tantamounts to be a good service. Therefore, service upon the revision petitioner was complete. Since, the revision petitioner did not turn up and did not file any written version, as such, the case was proceeded ex parte against the revision petitioner. After expiry of the statutory period, the revisionist / opposite party No. 1 appeared and filed the application before the Learned Commission below praying for permission to contest the case. The application filed by the revisionist / petitioner was rejected as the said application had no merit. Therefore, we may hold that the Learned District Commission has rightly dismissed the M.A. Application being No. 838/2022.
- On perusal of the said order under challenge it appears to us that there is no incorrectness, illegality or impropriety in the impugned order passed by the Learned District Commission.
- In view of the above discussion we hold that the order of the Learned District Commission below should not be disturbed. Therefore, there is nothing to interfere with the impugned order. So, the revisional application is without any merit. It is, therefore, dismissed.
- Considering the facts and circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs.
- The Learned District Commission below is directed to dispose of the case as early as possible preferably within a period of two months from the date of passing of this order.
- Let a copy of this order be sent to the Learned District Commission below at once.
- Office to comply.
| |
