Before
the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal, at
Premises being no. 11 A, Mirza Ghalib Street,
Kolkata-700087.
Memo of Appeal no. FA / 480 / 2013.
In the matter of :
Nilima Roy,
__________Appellant.
- Versus _
Jayaraman Ramesh
and others ,
__________Respondents.
Written
Objection of Jayaraman Ramesh, being Respondent no. 1, herein, to the Petition
for Condonation of delay, filed by the Appellant.
1.
That the petition under objection is not
maintainable in law.
2.
That
the petitioner under objection is false, baseless, mala fide and an
harassing one and the petitioner is put to strict proof thereof.
3.
That
the statements made in Paragraph 1 of the petition under objection are matters
of record.
4.
That
the statements made in Paragraph 2 of the petition under objection are not
correct and as such hereby denied and disputed.
5.
That
the statements made in Paragraph 3, & 4, of the petition under objection
are not correct and as such hereby denied and disputed. It is specifically
stated that the notice to appear before Lower Fora has duly been served to the
appellant and the appellant was in receipt of the Notices and the Petition
under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act’ 1986, but wilfully and
deliberately did not appear before the Lower Fora, and did not contest the
proceeding of Consumer Case.
6.
That the statements made in Paragraph 5, 6, 7,
8, & 9, of the petition under objection are not correct and as such hereby
denied and disputed, save and except those are the matter of records. It is
stated that the service of notice upon the appellant has properly been served
but the appellant did not appear in the proceeding and thus the Learned Fora
below proceeded ex-parte against the appellant, and there was no irregularity
and illegality has ever been occurred in adopting proper proceedings in the
interest of fair administration of justice.
7.
That
the statements made in Paragraph 10, 11, 12, 13, & 15, of the petition
under objection are not correct & true and as such hereby denied and
disputed. It is stated that the story of the appellant are of very general in
nature and no specific story has ever been asserted to show any sufficient
cause for delay in filling appeal before the Hon’ble State Commission. It is
also stated that no power of authority has ever been placed by the appellant
with her petition. It is also stated that a prolong period has been occurred as
delay in filling of the present appeal by the appellant though nothing has ever
been described with detail particulars of proper cause of day to day delay in
filling the present appeal before the Hon’ble State Commission and thus not
acceptable in any manner and liable to be dismissed with appropriate costs. It
is further asserted that the certificate of DR. D.K. Singh, also cannot taken
as granted as no signature of the appellant has ever been acknowledged by the
said Doctor, in accordance with the Law.
8.
That
the statements made in Paragraph 16, 17, 18, 19, & 20, of the petition
under objection are not correct and true and as such hereby denied and
disputed. It is stated that the Order
& Judgment was passed on 12-09-2012, in C.C. no. 178 of 2012, by the
Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, at Alipore, South 24
Parganas, and therefore thirty days for filling the present appeal under
Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act’ 1986, expired as on 13-10-2012, but
not filled by the appellant and therefore delay caused as in the month of
October’2012 as 18 days, in the month of November’ 2012 as 30 days, in the
month of December’ 2012 as 31 days, in the month of January’ 2013 as 31 days,
in the month of February’ 2013 as 28 days, in the month of March’ 2013 as 31
days, in the month of April’2013 as 30 days, in the month of May’ 2013 as 31
days, in the month of June’ 2013 as 30 days, in the month of July’ 2013 as 31
days, in the month of August’ 2013 as 31 days, in the month of September’ 2013,
30 days, in the month of October’ 2013 as 31 days, in the month of November’
2013 as 30 days, in the month of December’ 2013 as 31 days, in the month of
January’ 2014 as 31 days, in the month of February’ 2014 as 28 days, in the
month of March’ 2014 as 31 days, in the month of April’ 2014 as 30 days, in the
month of May’ 2014 as 2 days, total days of delay are 566 (
Five Hundred Sixty Six ) days delay has
not been sufficiently described by the appellant.
9.
That even though the appellant seeking
counting of the delay from the date of receipt of notice of the execution
proceeding, such a receipt has not ever been enclosed therewith the petition of
condonation of delay to substantiate her version, and thus not believable
story. Further no sufficient cause has ever been described by appellant as to
day by day causing of such delay.
10.
That
the appellant prays before the Hon’ble State Commission, as to consideration of
her story sympathetically, is not the matter concern of Law and even in the
facts, and thus liable to be dismiss with cost.
11.
That
your Petitioner states and submits that in Harshita Versus Dr. Aruna Kulkarni,
reported in II ( 2014 ) CPJ 239 (NC), the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, New Delhi, held as application general and vague – Day to
day delay not explained – Sufficient cause not shown – Delay not condoned.
12.
That
Your Petitioner states and submits that the Hon’ble Apex Court in Anshul
Aggarwal – Versus – New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV ( 2011 ) CPJ
63 ( SC ), has laid down as “ It is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such
cases for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special
period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act,
1986 for filling appeals and revision in consumer matters and the object of
expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if this
Court was to entertain highly belated petition filed against the orders of the
Consumer Foras”.
13.
That
Your Petritioner states and submits that in Balwant Singh – Versus Jagadish
Singh & Ors, V ( 2010 ) SLT 790, ( Civil Appeal No. 1166 of 2006 ), decided
by the Hon’ble Apex Court on 08-07-2010, and it was held as “ The Party should
show that besides action bona fide, it had taken all possible steps within its
power and control and had approached the Court without any unnecessary delay.
The test is whether or not a cause is sufficient to see whether it could have
been avoided by the Party by the exercise of due care and attention. [ Advanced
Law Lexicon, P. Ramanatha Aiyar, 3rd Edition, 2005 ]”.
14.
That
Your Petitioner states and submits that in Ram Lal and Ors. Versus Rewa
Coalfield Limited, AIR 1962 SC 361, it has been observed by the Hon’ble Apex
Court as “ It is however, necessary to emphasize that even after aufficient
cause has been shown a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay in
question as a matter of right. The proof of a sufficient cause is discretionary
jurisdiction vested in the Court by Section 5. If sufficient cause is not
proved nothing further has to be done, the application for condonation has to
be dismissed on the ground alone. If sufficient cause is shown then the Court
has to enquire whether in its discretion it should condone the delay. This
aspect of the matter naturally introduces the consideration of all relevant
facts and it is at this stage that diligence of the party or its bona fides may
fall for consideration, but the scope of the inquiry while exercising the
discretionary power after sufficient cause is shown would naturally be limited
only to such facts as the Court may regard as relevant”.
15.
That the petition under
objection is otherwise bad in law as also in the facts and circumstances of the
case and as such the same is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost.
Through
_______________
Advocate
for the Respondent no.1.
Dated
: 2nd day of June’ 2014.
Place
: High Court, Calcutta.
No comments:
Post a Comment