SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 3523

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
N K TRADERS Through its ProP. NAGENDRA shaw – Appellant
Versus
SUMAN DAS S/o. Swapan das – Respondent
SC/19/RP/110/2025



Petitioner Advocates:ANWESHA MISHRA ,Respondent Advocate: SURAJ KUMAR THAKUR ,AVIJIT BHUINA

##PAGE1##

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

WEST BENGAL

REVISION PETITION NO. SC/19/RP/110/2025

(Against the Order dated 17th October 2025 in Appeal No. DC/303/CC/2051/2025 of the District

Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission North 24 parganas)

WITH

SC/19/IA/1050/2025 (STAY)

N K TRADERS Through its ProP. NAGENDRA shaw

BUSINESS ADDRESS - CN 8/2, SIDCO GLOBAL TOWER, 8TH FLOOR, ROOM NO.804SALT

LAKE, SECTOR V , 24 PARAGANAS NORTH,WEST BENGAL.

NAGENDRA SHAW S/o. Ramji prasad shaw

PERMANENT ADDRESS - SHIBALAYA , LOKENATH MANDIR, RAJARHAT GOPALPUR M ,

PURBACHAL, , 24 PARAGANAS NORTH,WEST BENGAL.

.......Petitioner(s)

Versus

SUMAN DAS S/o. Swapan das

PERMANENT ADDRESS - BAMIHATI, HABRA , 24 PARAGANAS NORTH,WEST BENGAL.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MRS. SOMA BHATTACHARJEE , PRESIDING MEMBER

HON'BLE MR. ANANDA KUMAR TIWARI , JUDICIAL MEMBER

FOR THE PETITIONER:

ANWESHA MISHRA (Advocate)

DATED: 25/05/2026

ORDER

HON’BLE ANANDA KUMAR TIWARI

(JUDICIAL MEMBER)

Final Order/Judgement

Date of Filing Date of hearing Date of Judgment

23/12/2025 25/05/2026 25/05/2026

##PAGE2##

The revisionist N.K. Traders through its Proprietor Nagendra Shaw filed this Revision Petition under

Section 47(1)(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act of 2019) to impeach

the order No 5 dated 17/10/25 passed by Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, North 24

Pgs at Barasat (hereinafter referred to as the DCDRC) whereby Hon’ble District Commission observing that

statutory period is over, did not accept written version filed by the OP No 1 and 2.

Going through the materials it reveals that respondent herein being Suman Das filed one petition of

complaint being CC/2051/2025 before Hon’ble District Commission praying for an order directing the

revisionist to refund Rs. 5,00,000/- along with interest as well as for compensation and litigation cost as

stated in said complaint. It is further case of the revisionist that after receiving the summon on 22.07.2025,

the revisionist appeared before Hon’ble District Commission on 03.09.2025 with W.V. stating the ground

but unfortunately the date being declared holiday, the revisionist failed to file the W.V on that day. It is

further stated that the date was fixed on 04.09.2025, which was not known to the revisionist and on

04/09/25; next date was fixed on 17.10.2025 and on that day Ld. Advocate for the revisionist appeared

before Hon’ble DCDRC and filed the W.V. but the same was not accepted. It is stated that Hon’ble DCDRC

without giving due consideration to the facts, refused to accept the W.V. as the statutory period was over.

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order dt. 17.10.2025 passed by Hon’ble DCDRC in

CC/2051/2025, the revisionist filed the revision on the ground that the impugned order dt. 17.10.2025 is

contrary to the law and Hon’ble Commission passed the order without going through the situation and on

further ground that Hon’ble DCDRC erred in not using the judicial observation that the revisionist had to be

intimated about the next date. Contending the above and other facts as mentioned in the application the

revisionist prayed to allow the revision and set aside the order dt. 17.10.2025 passed by Hon’ble DCDRC in

CC/2051/2025.

The record reflects that on last two days none appeared on behalf of the revisionist and on

06.04.2026, Ld. Advocate for the respondent filed Vakalatnama and as none appeared on behalf of the

revisionist on that day as well as on 12/05/26 and again on 25/05/26, the revisionist was directed to show

cause as to why the matter be not disposed of on merit. Today Ld Advocate for the revisionist appeared and

filed show cause stating that due to illness she could not appear on last dates. Though Ld Advocate for the

revisionist failed to appear on last two dates, for ends of justice the show cause is accepted. The revision

application is taken up for hearing. Hd Ld Advocate for the revisionist as well as Ld Advocate for the

respondent at length. It is submitted by the revisionist th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top