Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

The Revision is directed against the Order dated 22-02-2017 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Kolkata-I (North) in C.C. No. 251/2016.

By such petition, it is stated by the Revisionist that it was served with a copy of incomplete petition wherein page no. 4 of the petition of complaint was missing.  As a result of this, the Revisionist could not prepare its WV in time.  On 22-02-2017, the Ld. Advocate of the Revisionist was busy in this Commission.  So, she could not reach the Ld. District Forum in time.  In absence of the Ld. Advocate of the Revisionist, ex parte order was passed by the Ld. District Forum.  Although the Ld. Advocate of the Revisionist rushed to the Ld. District Forum and explained her predicament, however, since the Respondent had left by then, the matter could not be heard and the ex-parte order sustained.  Accordingly, by filing this Revision, the Revisionist prayed for setting aside the impugned order.

Heard both sides and perused the material on record.

On going through the Confonet website, we find that vide order no. 2 dated 29-06-2016, direction was given by the Ld. District Forum to issue notice upon the Revisionist.  Thereafter, in absence of SR, vide Order No. 3 dated 12-08-2016, direction was given to issue fresh notice upon the Revisionist. Again, vide order no. 6 dated 18-11-2016, Respondent was directed to take proper step to serve notice upon the Revisionist in view of filing of incomplete postal track record by the Respondent.  Eventually, on 02-02-2017, the Revisionist appeared before the Ld. District Forum and prayed for time to file WV which was allowed by the Ld. District Forum fixing 22-02-2017 for filing WV.  On that day also, i.e., on 02-02-2017, another set of documents, i.e., petition of complaint together with annexure was handed over to her. 

From the above sequence of events, as it appears from the Confonet website, notice was issued to the Revisionist not in once or twice, but thrice in a row, besides handing over an extra set of documents personally to the Ld. Advocate of the Revisionist on 02-02-2017.  Although in absence of crystal clear SR, repeated notices were issued to the Revisionist, significantly, none of the notice returned to the Ld. District Forum implying that on each occasion, the same was duly delivered to the office of the Revisionist. There is no reason to believe that on each occasion similar goof up took place.

Although the Revisionist has neither clarified the actual date of receipt of notice by it, even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that the notice issued by the Respondent on 15-12-2016 safely reached the end of the Revisionist, on the basis of which the Revisionist appeared before the Ld. District Forum on 02-02-2017, Revisionist had sufficient time to raise the issue of alleged non-receipt of page no. 4 of the petition of complaint when its Ld. Advocate appeared before the Ld. District Forum.

That apart, the moment the Ld. Advocate got notice of such missing page, she could collect the same from any of  the earlier notices sent to the office of the Revisionist or  could even petitioned before the Ld. District Forum to provide a copy thereof to her or obtained certified copy of the missing page. 

It is absolutely clear, therefore, that nothing but sheer lack of wherewithal on the part of the Revisionist stood in the way of filing WV within the statutory period of limitation.  Therefore, we find absolutely no cogent reason to show any sort of forbearance towards the cause of the Revisionist.

Revision, thus, fails.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

That the Revision be and the same is dismissed on contest against the Respondent without any cost.  The impugned order is hereby affirmed.