JUDGEMENT/FINAL ORDER

Today is fixed for hearing the revisional application. The revisionists that Station Master of N.F. Railway and DRM, Sealdah are being represented through their Ld. Advocates. The OP personally recorded his appearance today. The revisionist is heard in presence of both sides. The Revision case in nutshell is that the OP no. 1 of this case has filed the consumer complaint bearing no. 110/S/2016 before the Ld. DCDRF, Siliguri where the revisionist were the opposite party no. 1A and 1B who appeared before the Ld. Forum and submitted the WV. Thereafter on the date of evidence of the Opposite parties, the Opposite Party of that case, i.e. the Opposite party no. 1A and 1B could not submit the evidences-in-chief on their part. So the Ld. Forum ordered that they proceed with the case for ex-parte hearing against the revisionist that is OP no. 1A 1B vide order No. 20 dated 1/10/2018. Being aggrieved with the said order, this revision follows on the ground that one Sri Kanak Lal Kundu, Ld. Senior Advocate was appointed to conduct the case of OP no. 1A and 1B of that consumer complaint case. He become seriously ill and during the pendency of the case, he breathed his last. Therefore, there was a big gap of communication  between the Legal counsellors and the N.F. Railway Authority and for that reason the evidence-in-chief could not be prepared in due time and for that reason, the Ld. Forum  has debarred them from contesting the case. Now they want to contest the case and for that reason they have preferred this revision for setting aside the order of Ld. Forum dated 1/10/2018 and 27/12/2017. The OP no. 1 of this case who happens to be consumer complaint of CC No 16 of 110 has contested revisional application and submitted a written objection against the revisional application. The revisional application is heard in presence of both sides.

Decision with reasons

After hearing both sides, it is found that the revisionist has submitted the W.V. in the instant case in due time and they were ready for conducting the trial of that case. During pendency of the trial, Ld. Advocate Sri Kanak Lal Kundu passed away and for that reason the evidence in chief could not be prepared on the part of the OP no. 1A and 1B of that case. The record further speaks that the revisionist that is OP no. 1A and 1B has got enough space and time to file the evidence in chief in spite of death of Ld. Advocate Sri Kanak Lal Kundu. There was latches on the part of the Railway Authority not to proceed with the case in due time. On the other hand, they have already filed WV in that case and disputed the consumer complaint and for that reason they should have got an opportunity of being heard by adducing the evidences on their part. The Principle of legal jurisprudence, always encourages us to hear both sides before settlement of any disputes/issues in the legal arena. In that perspective this Commission thinks it fit to allow the revisionist to contest the consumer complaint by adducing  proper evidences before the Forum. For that reason their revisional application should be allowed. On the other hand, there was a big latches on the part of the revisionist and due to their latches, the consumer complainant that is Op no. 1 of this revision has suffered a lot and to compensate his loss a moderate cost should be imposed upon the revisionists as condition precedent before allowing the revision petition. Therefore, in conclusion the Commission thinks it fit to dispose of the revisional application in terms of fair and natural justice.

Hence it is,

Ordered,

That the instant revisional application is hereby allowed, subject to payment of cost of rupees 2000 to be paid by the revisionist to the OP no. 1 of this revision before the Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri.

The impugned order under revision dated 27/12/2017 and 1/10/2018 in CC no. 16 of 110 of Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri is hereby set aside.

The revisionist are directed to submit the evidence-in-chief within one month from this date before the Ld. Forum and Ld. Forum will fix a date for evidence for evidence of the revisionist that OP NO. 1A and 1B after satisfying that the cost imposed by the Commission is duly paid to the OP NO. 1(Consumer Complainant).

Let the copies of this order be handed over to the Parties free of cost and also the order be communicated to the Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri for taking necessary action.

The interim order of stay is hereby recalled.