Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
The Manager vs Asoke Kumar Das & Ors on 23 August, 2022
23.08.2022
(D/L-08)
Ct.-18
(Susanta)
C.O. 3883 of 2019
With
I.A. No. CAN 2 of 2022
The Manager, Central Bank of India
-Vs-
Asoke Kumar Das & Ors.
Mr. Sounak Bhattacharya,
Mr. S. Pal Choudhuri,
Ms. Diya Nandi,
... For the Petitioner.
None appears on behalf of the opposite
parties in spite of service.
The revisional application under Article 227
of the Constitution of India is directed against
the order dated October 1, 2019 passed by the
State Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, West Bengal in First Appeal no.
A/858/2018.
The opposite party no.1 deposited 17
number of National Saving Certificates as the
collateral security of his house building loan.
The opposite party no. 1 alleged that non-
encashment of some of the NSCs even after their
maturity is a deficiency in service on the part of
the petitioner and filed an complaint before the
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
District 24-Parganas (South) under Section 12 of
the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 being
Complaint Case No. 609 of 2014 for
compensation and damages.
The District Forum refused the prayer of the
opposite party no. 1 but the State Consumer
Dispute Redressal Commission West Bengal, in
appeal allowed the said prayer of the opposite
party no. 1 thereby directed the petitioner to pay
the opposite party no. 1 compensation of Rs.
1,00,000/- and costs of a sum of Rs. 10,000/-.
The said amounts were directed to be paid within
45 days from the date of the said order, in
default a simple interest @ 9% per annum was
directed to be accrued on the total amount of
matured value of the NSCs and on the said
amount of compensation.
The opposite party no. 1 levied the
Execution Case No. E.A. 42 of 2018 for
realization of a sum of Rs. 1,18,750.46/- alleging
that the said amount has accrued by way of
interest for the delayed payment of the said
compensation and costs.
The District forum dismissed the said
execution case holding that the order of the State
Commission whereby the said compensation was
directed to be paid was not communicated to the
petitioner as required under Rule 7(10) of the
West Bengal Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 as
such, time for payment of the said compensation
amount is to be reckoned from the date when the
petitioner obtained the certified copy of the said
order of the State Commission and if the said
time is so reckoned, the payment was made to
the opposite party no. 1 within the said
stipulated period of 45 days.
The State Commission in appeal against the
said order, has set aside the order of the District
Forum. The said order of the State Commission
is under challenge in the present revisional
application.
Mr. Saunak Bhattacharya, learned advocate
for the petitioner relying on the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of HOUSING
BOARD, HARYANA VS. HOUSING BOARD
COLONY WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND ORS.
reported in (1995) 5 SCC 672 submits that the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, while dealing with a
provision under the Haryana Consumer
Protection Rules, 1988 pari materia with the Rule
7(10) of the West Bengal Consumer Protection
Rules 1987 has held that limitation period must
be counted from the date of communication of
the order duly signed and dated, therefore, the
State Commission has committed a jurisdictional
error in reversing the judgment of the District
Forum.
Having heard the learned advocate for the
petitioner and on perusal of the records, it
appears that the petitioner came to learn about
the details of his liability for payment of
compensation and costs only after obtaining a
certified copy of the order of the State
Commission on May 23, 2018 and the opposite
party no. 1 received the amount of compensation
and costs on June 27, 2018, which is well within
the stipulated time of 45 days.
The State Commission has committed a
patent jurisdictional error in holding that
uploading of the orders on the website of the
Court is sufficient compliance of Rule 7(10) of the
West Bengal Consumer Protection Rules, 1987.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision cited
by Mr. Bhattacharya has held that the order has
to be communicated to the parties affected by the
said order so that the party adversely affected
therefrom may have a fair and reasonable
opportunity of knowing the texts, reasons and
contents thereof. The said observation of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court although is in the
context of reckoning the period of limitation in
preferring an appeal under Section 15 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 but principle laid
down in the said decision is equally applicable in
reckoning the period of limitation for the purpose
of complying a time bound direction of the Court.
Summing up the discussion made above,
this Court is of the view that the order impugned
is not sustainable and is accordingly set aside, in
consequence the first Appeal no. A/858 of 2018
is dismissed.
C.O. 3883 of 2019 is allowed with the above
terms without any order as to costs.
In view of the disposal of the revisional
application, the connected application being I.A.
No. CAN 2 of 2022 is also disposed of accordingly
without any order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order,
if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject
to compliance with all requisite formalities.
(Biswajit Basu, J.)
