The court ruled that procedural failures not being deliberate warrants reconsideration and allows opportunities for submissions under specific conditions.

1. This appeal has been filed under S.19 of the Consumer Protection Act , 1986 against the interim order dated 3.1.2017, passed by the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as ˜the State Commission') in MA / 910/2016, in CC / 213/2016.
1. Brief facts of the case are as follows:
The Appellant and Respondent entered into an agreement dated 30.12.2007 for construction of three buildings by the Appellants.

2. The Respondent filed a Consumer Complaint before the State Commission bearing No. 213/2016. The State Commission issued notice to the Appellants and thereafter the Appellants filed M.A. No. 910/2016, challenging the maintainability of the Consumer Complaint. The State Commission directed the Appellants to file their written version and the date fixed for filing written statement was 3.1.2017.

3. Learned Counsel for the Appellants could not reach the Court on time and the State Commission proceeded ex parte vide order dated 3.1.2017 against the Appellants and closed their right to file written statement. Appellants have, thus, filed the present appeal with a prayer to quash and set aside the order dated 3.1.2017 passed by the State Commission in CC / 213/2016 and to permit the Appellants to file written submission in the said complaint.

4. The Appellants contended that the State Commission ought to have appreciated that it took time to process the documents and the impugned order dated 3.1.2017 passed by the State Commission at 10.55 a.m. is very harsh, causing serious prejudice to the interest of the Appellants. It may be set aside, as otherwise they could suffer irreparable loss and injury.

5. Presiding Member and Member of the State Commission directed to fix the matter in ex parte board against the Appellants, fixing 15.2.2017 as the next date for filing of evidence on affidavit by the Complainant and also for hearing the Miscellaneous Application challenging the very maintainability of the complaint.

6. Heard the learned Counsel for both Parties. Learned Counsel for the Respondent stated that through the written statement was not filed by the Appellants in time, the same may be allowed, subject to payment heavy cost of Rs. 30,000. Learned Counsel for the Appellants also prays to permit filing of written statement, subject to payment of Rs. 30,000 to the Respondent.

7. As submitted by the learned Counsel for the Appellants, the non - filing of the Written Statement in time does not appear to be intentional or deliberate. In the interests of justice, to give an opportunity for the Appellants to place their submissions in the matter, as agreed by the learned Counsel for both the parties, First Appeal No. 230/2017 is allowed, subject to payment of Rs. 30,000 directly to the Respondent by way of demand draft in four weeks' time. The Appellants are granted 4 weeks' time to file their Written Statement before the State Commission in CC / 213/2016. The State Commission shall accept the Written Statement only after ensuring that the cost of Rs. 30,000 is paid by the Appellants to the Respondent. If the Appellants fail to pay the cost of Rs. 30,000 to the Respondent within four weeks, the First Appeal will stand dismissed automatically. First appeal stands disposed of on the above terms.
Appeal allowed.