HON’BLE MR. SUDEB MITRA, PRESIDING MEMBER 

Order No. : 12

Date : 02.02.2024

    Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the orders dated 02.09.2022 and 21.11.2022, passed by the Ld. DCDRC, Purba Bardhaman in CC/15/2022 by which the Ld. Concerned DCDRC was pleased to reject the adjournment prayer of the complainant of CC/15/2022, Prabhat Som for his seeking time to file evidence-in-chief in CC/15/2022, on the ground of non-disclosure by the complainant of CC/15/2022, as to his reason for failure to prepare and submit the evidence in chief from his end in CC/15/2022 and also for the said complainant’s failure to file in CC/15/2022, his prayer for appointment of independent Automobile Expert, according to proper norms and procedure respectively, the complainant of CC/15/2022 Prabhat Som has filed this Revision Petition U/Sec. 47 (1) (b) of the C.P. Act of 2019 on 27.12.2022, praying for setting aside the impugned orders dated 02.09.2022 and 21.11.2022, passed in CC/15/2022 by the Ld. DCDRC, Purba Bardhaman and to allow the instant Revision Petition.

    By filing the instant Revision Petition, the complainant/Revisionist has contended that his purchased Tractor that was financially awarded by the proforma OP/Proforma Respondent and bought by him) from the OP side of CC/15/2022 i.e. the respondent of the instant Revision Petition was detected to have inherent and manufacturing defects that could be experienced by him, on regular basis, frequently during the course of his utilizing the same and since his prayers (to the OP/Respondent) for thorough and total repairing of the same or replacement of the same was not entertained by the OPs of CC/15/2022, resulting in his sustaining loss of earning his livelihood coupled with the mounting pressure of the proforma OP of CC/15/2022 i.e. the proforma Respondent of the instant Revision Petition, created upon him to pay up the EMI installments for it’s financially aiding him to purchase the tractor, the complainant/revisionist had filed CC/15/2022 on 27.12.2022 before the Ld. DCDRC, seeking consequent reliefs, so contained in the prayer portion of CC/15/2022.

   It is the specific contention of the complainant/Revisionist/Petitioner Probhat Som that though the appointment of Automobile Expert is a must to assess the merit of his complaint about the inherent technical defects of the manufacturing of the Tractor purchased by him from the OPs and that argument has supporting reasons as per judgements and references pressed by him vide EID Parsy Vs. B. Bengamin – 1(1992) CPJ 279 pronounced by the Hon’ble NCDRC, Tata Motors VS. S. Bhasin – III 2008 CPJ III, Chandreswar VS Telco – 1 (2007) CPJ 2 ITC, yet for the reasons only known to the concerned Ld. DCDRC, his such prayer was not entertained vide order dated 21.11.2022 passed by the Ld. DCDRC, Purba Bardhaman. It is also the specific contention of the Revisionist/Complainant that vide order dated 02.09.2022, without any specific ground or justification, the concerned Ld. DCDRC has rejected his adjournment prayer seeking time to file Examination-in-chief in CC/15/2022, so by filing the instant Revision, the Revisionist/Petitioner i.e. the complainant of CC/15/2022, has assailed those two orders passed in CC/15/2022 by the Ld. DCDRC, Purba Bardhaman.

    The Ld. Counsel for the Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 raised objections against the viability of the instant Revision Petition of the complainant of CC/15/2022 and questioned the entertainability and legal sustainability of this Revision Petition by agitating firstly that since the order passed on 02.09.2022 in CC/15/2022, so intended to be revised, as per prayer of the Revisionist/Petitioner, is filed by the Revisionist/Petitioner on 27.12.2022 before this Commission, so that is time barred and thus not entertainable besides its being suffering from lack of assignment of cogent reasons for making such delay in filing the revision.

    That apart the Revisionist/Petitioner, through their Ld. Counsel, has assailed the Revision Petition on further ground that the complainant has referred his chosen out name as Automobile Expert to be selected by the Ld. DCDRC concerned for determination of alleged technical defects of inherent nature in the complainant’s/Revisionist’s purchased Tractor, so bought from the OPs of CC/15/2022 and the instant Revision Petition.

   Apart from it these OPs/Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 of this Revision Petition has contended through their Ld. Counsel that the Complainant/Revisionist has clubbed two petitions dated 02.09.2022 and 21.11.2022 in one Revision Application of the Revision Petition No. 25/2022 filed on 27.12.2022 and claimed for setting aside of both these two orders passed on different dates on different issues not connected with each other and for that reason the same deserves no positive consideration. 

    By filing separate written objection, the OPs of this Revision Petition sought for rejection of the same. This appears Proforma Respondent has pressed its stand point through its Ld. Counsel seeking rejection of the instant Revision Petition as it in meritless and intended for delaying the proceeding.

Point for consideration

    Now it is to be determined whether the instant Revision Petition is sustainable in the eye of law and portential enough to be legally entertainable and it is also to be determined at the same time, on the contrary, as to whether the instant Revision Petition is not maintainable, as pressed for by the OPs of the instant Revision Petition.

Decision with reasons

    It is forthcoming from the instant Revision Application, pressed by the Revisionist/Complainant of CC/15/2022 Probhat Som that he has intended to assail in one Revision Application the impugned orders dated 02.09.2022 and 21.11.2022 both, passed in CC/15/2022 by the Ld. DCDRC, Purba Bardhaman that are altogether of different nature and not even remotely connected with each other issues or are not also emanating from any particular issue as consequent effect of each other, in one Revision Application.

    As a result, in the absence of any specific clause, available in the C.P. Act of 2019 to lend scopes to entertain this type of instant Revision that is seeking revision of two orders of different nature in one Revision Petition for setting aside both those orders unconnected and detached from each other by nature assailed in one Revision Application, the said Revision Application deserves to be not entertainable and/or legally sustainable.

    Besides order dated 02.09.2022 that was intended to be assailed vide this Revision Petition dated 27.12.2022 is barred by limitation as contemplated in the C.P. Act besides limitation Act of 1963 and the Revisionist could not assign any justifiable ground to condone the delay in filing the Revision of the impugned orders dated 02.09.2022 for giving it any positive consideration.

    It further transpires from the available materials on record that the complainant/Revisionist/Petitioner had pressed for appointment of Technical Expert to assess the defects in his purchased tractor which he claims to have inherent technical defects of material nature that are sustaining as experienced by him, in running the said vehicle. In support of his such proposition he has cited the references as reflected above. However, admittedly, the Revisionist had suggested the name of such expert of his own choice, to be retained by the Ld. DCDRC for the said purpose and for that reasons, as can legitimately held/inferred, the Ld. Concerned DCDRC, by its’ impugned order dated 21.11.2022 passed in CC/15/2022, had rejected such position of the complainant/Revisionist, on contest holding that the said petition was not filed as per norms and procedure for appointment of independent Automobile Expert. The selection of name of such Expert for the purpose, as desired by the complainant of CC/15/2022/Revisionist, ought to have been left by the complainant/Revisionist for determination, according to the absolute desertion, circumspection and care of the concerned Ld. DCDRC, Purba Bardhaman, on the basis of it’s inherent power.

    On the grounds as referred above, I do not feel inclined to entertain the instant Revision Petition of the Revisionist/Complainant of CC/15/2022 i.e. Probhat Som and the same thus deserves no positive consideration.

    Hence, it is

                                       Ordered

    That the instant Revision Petition dated 27.12.2022 pressed by the complainant of CC/15/2022, in this Revision Application No. RP/25/2022 stands rejected on contest.

    The impugned orders dated 02.09.2022 and 21.11.2022 passed in CC/15/2022 by the Ld. DCDRC, Purba Bardhaman stands uninterfered.

    Let a copy of this order be furnished to the contenting parties of this Revision Petition free of cost forthwith as per relevant rules and regulations, on observance of relevant formalities on this aspect.