Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

Aggrieved over dismissal of the complaint case by the Ld. District Forum, Kolkata, Unit-I (North), this Appeal is moved by Sri Anil Kumar Shah, Complainant.

Brief facts of the Appellant’s case are that, on 23-12-2015, owing to expiry of the father of his Ld. Advocate, no step could be taken before the Ld. District Forum.  Thereafter, on 22-04-2016, it is claimed by the Appellant that, his Ld. Advocate was present at the Ld. District Forum and prayed for further time for the purpose of filing questionnaire, but the Ld. District Forum inadvertently marked him as absent on that day. Thereafter, on 05-07-2016 and 04-11-2016, respectively, the concerned Ld. Advocate was severally ill for which he remained unrepresented before the Ld. District Forum on the said dates.  In view of this, the Ld. District Forum dismissed the complaint case. 

Heard Ld. Advocates for the Appellant and Respondent No. 2 in the matter.  Despite due service of notice, the Respondent No. 1 did not turn up. 

The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 envisage disposal of a case within a period of 90 days.  In order to achieve this goal, it is always desirable that parties to the case always remain at their toes and make the most of a situation.  The Appellant though ascribed some reasons to justify the non-appearance of his Ld. Advocate before the Ld. District Forum on four consecutive occasions, for some obscure reasons, he has not furnished any cogent documentary proof in support of his contention. 

The Appellant must appreciate that; mere averment/claim does not prove anything. In order to earn the confidence of a Court of Law, one requires to furnish relevant tangible proof which is sorely missing here. 

Let us assume for the sake argument that the concerned Ld. Advocate was indeed severally ill for a prolonged period of time.  However, there is no reason to believe that Appellant himself was ignorant of such fact because in his own personal interest, it was expected of him to ensure proper coordination/liaison with his Ld. Advocate.  In such circumstances, we fail to understand, what prevented him for disclosing such fact before the Ld. District Forum to enable the Forum below take appropriate decision in the matter. 

The Appellant ought to appreciate also the fact that, thanks to one’s own predicament, the other side cannot be subjected to unwarranted harassment. 

The conduct of the Appellant is not at all satisfactory.  Be that as it may, lest the interest of the Appellant be prejudiced, we deem it fit and proper to accord due liberty to the Appellant to contest the case on payment of a nominal cost.

The Appeal, thus, succeeds in part.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

The Appeal stands allowed on contest in part.  The impugned order is hereby set aside subject to deposit of a cost of Rs. 5,000/- with the Consumer Welfare Fund of the District Forum.  Parties to appear before the Ld. District Forum on 29-06-2018 for fresh adjudication of the case on merit and payment of cost.