HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT MANDAL, PRESIDENT
This revision petition is at the instance of the Revisionists/petitioners and is directed against the Order No.46 dated 21.05.2024 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata, Unit-III (South) (in short ‘District Commission’) in connection with consumer complaint being No. CC/24/2015 whereby the Ld. District Commission was pleased to allow the substitution petition.
The Respondent being the complainant filed a petition of complaint being No. CC/24/2015 against the Revisionists/petitioners praying for following reliefs:-
- An order directing the owner developer to execute the deed of conveyance in respect of a flat on the 2nd floor (south east facing) measuring more or less 873 sq. ft. super built up area being Municipal Premises No. 54/106, Raipur Road, locally known as Postal address at 3/95, Sanghati Colony, P.S.- Patuli now Netaji Nagar, Kolkata 700047 after taking the balance consideration amount of Rs.3,50,000/- and completing the same in all respect and the said flat is habitable condition in all respect along with a Completion Certificate from the KMC;
- An order directing the owner/developer to provide a building completion certificate along with sanction plan in respect of Municipal Premises No. 54/106, Raipur Road, locally known as Postal address at 3/95, Sanghati Colony, P.S.- Patuli now Netaji Nagar, Kolkata 700047 in which the flat is sanctioned;
- An order directing the owner/developer for making registration of the said flat at an earliest in favour of complainant;
- An order directing the owner/developer to adjust the amount of Rs.75,000/- for proper fitting of best quality of sanitary, plumbing and electrical materials which the complainant himself purchased and handed over to the owner/developer to be installed in the flat out of balance consideration amount of Rs.4,50,000/-;
- To direct the owner/developer for completion of works as mentioned in para and clause (a) to (t) in the flat of the complainant;
- To direct the owner/developer to pay a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainant;
- To direct the owner/developer to pay Rs.20,000/- to the complainant as litigation cost;
- To pass such order/orders as Your Honour may deem fit and proper;
The Revisionists/petitioners entered appearance in this Commission was contesting the case by filing written version.
During the pendency of the case, OP Sushil Kumar Das passed away on 20.01.2024. Thereafter, Respondent/complainant filed an application for substitution to substitute the names of legal heirs of said Sushil Kumar Das.
Ld. District Commission was pleased to allow the said substitution petition by the order impugned.
Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order, the Revisionists/petitioners have preferred this revisional application.
Heard the Ld. Advocate appearing for the Revisionists and on careful perused the record, memo of revision petition and other documents.
Having heard the Ld. Advocate appearing for the Revisionists/petitioners and on careful perusal of the record, it appears to me that during the pendency of the case Sushil Kumar Das, OP No.2 passed away on 20.01.2024 and subsequently the Respondent/complainant filed a substitution application to substitute the names of legal heirs of said Sushil Kumar Das.
Ld. Advocate appearing for the Revisionists/petitioners have urged that after the death of Sushil Kumar Das on 20.01.2024, the said consumer case has been abated and complainant did not take any action to inform the death of OP No.2 and did not file substitution petition within the prescribed period of time of 90 days. He has further urged that since the substitution petition has not been filed within time. So, the Ld. District Commission has committed wrong in allowing the said substitution petition.
Having heard the Ld. Advocate appearing for the parties and on careful perusal of the record and the substitution petition, it appears to me that OP. Sushil Kumar Das passed away on 20.01.2024 and thereafter, complainant/respondent filed substitution petition to substitute the legal heirs of Sushil Kumar Das. Against the substitution petition, the Revisionists/petitioners did not file any written objection. Moreover, I find that at the time of hearing and or allowing the substitution petition, Ld. Advocate appearing for OP raised no objection in allowing at the time of hearing of substitution petition. This apart I hold that the main objectives of the Consumer Protection Act are to protect the rights the consumers and safeguard their interests through a proper grievance Redressal mechanism.
In these facts and circumstances, I hold that Ld. District Commission has rightly allowed the substitution petition.
After giving due consideration to the submission made by the Ld. Advocate appearing for the Revisionists/petitioners and on scrutiny of the materials of record, I do not find any jurisdictional error or material irregularity in passing the order impugned.
Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order impugned.
The impugned order is hereby affirmed.
The revisional application is, thus, disposed of accordingly.
Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the Ld. DCDRC, Kolkata, Unit-III (South) for information.
