Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

RP/22/43

FLORENCE REAL ESTATE - Complainant(s)

Versus

CHINTAMANI RAI - Opp.Party(s)

SH.R.TIWARI

21 Oct 2022

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL      

 

                                  REVISION PETITION NO. 43 OF 2022

(Arising out of order dated 06.05.2022 passed in C.C.No.164/2019 by District Commission, Hoshangabad (Narmadapuram))

 

FLORENCE REAL STATE.                                                                              …          APPELLANT

 

Versus

                 

CHINTAMANI RAI.                                                                                            …         RESPONDENT.

                                      

BEFORE:

 

                  HON’BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI           :      PRESIDING MEMBER

                 HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY   :    MEMBER                                           

  

                                      O R D E R

21.10.2022

 

            Shri Ravindra Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner.

            Respondent is present in person.

                                   

As per A. K. Tiwari :                       

            This revision petition is directed against the order dated 06.05.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hoshangabad (Narmadapuram) (for short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.164/2019 whereby the District Commission allowed the application filed by the complainant/respondent for appointment of Commissioner  for inspecting the construction of house in question.

2.                Facts of the case in short are that the complainant/respondent purchased a plot on which the petitioner had to construct a house. After almost construction of the house, the respondent find some defects in construction, he therefore filed a complaint before the District Commission alleging deficiency in service on part of opposite party/petitioner. During

-2-

pendency of complaint, he moved an application for inspection of house by an independent Commissioner.

3.                The District Commission vide impugned order allowed his application for appointment of Commissioner for inspecting the house in question. Hence this revision.

4.                Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant/respondent is trying to linger on the matter and the District Commission has committed grave error in allowing his application for inspection of house in question by an independent Commissioner. He argued that he is not a builder and is only seller of plot.

5.                Respondent who appears in person supported the impugned order and submitted that if petitioner is not at fault, why he is opposing his prayer for appointment of Commissioner to carry out inspection of the house in question. He further submits that if the petitioner is not a builder, he need not to worry.

6.                After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on going through the impugned order, we do not find that while allowing the application made by the complainant for carrying out inspection of the house in question by an independent Commissioner, the District Commission has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested or as acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with

-3-

material irregularity calling interference in our revisional jurisdiction under Section 47(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

6.                We find that the District Commission has passed a well reasoned order and we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order. Accordingly, it is upheld.

7.                The District Commission is directed to proceed further in accordance with law.

8.                Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.

 

1. K. Tiwari)            (Dr. Srikant Pandey) 

              Presiding Member                Member