HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT MANDAL, PRESIDENT

1. This revision petition is directed against the order No. 9 dated 26.04.2023 passed by the Learned Addl. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajarhat (New Town) (in short, ‘the Addl. District Commission’) in connection with Complaint Case No. RBT/CC/124/2022 thereby allowed time for filing reply by the opposite parties subject to payment of cost of Rs.1,000/- C.P. to the complainant.

2. The complainant / respondent filed a complaint case against the revisionist praying for the following reliefs :-

“i) To pay entire sum of Advance amounting to Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand) only.

ii) To declare by the issuance of an Order upon the Opposite Party to pay to the Petitioner Rs.1,20,000/- (Rupees One Lac Twenty Thousand only) for compensation  due to failure in completing the job in due time and deficiency in service and doing unfair practice.

iii) Order the Opposite Party to pay interest as per the Bank Rate from the date of accepting the Advance payment and Rs.5,000/- as litigation costs for causing physical and mental harassment for unnecessary sufferings.

iv) Pass any other such order, as this Hon’ble Forum may deem fit and proper in the interests of justice.”

3. The revisionist / opposite party entered appearance in this case and was contesting the case by filing written version. Date was fixed on 26.04.2023 for filing reply by the opposite party. On that date the opposite party was present in person and was ready to file the reply. But Learned Addl. District Commission below was pleased to adjourn the case for the ends of justice. Prayer of opposite party was allowed for filing reply subject to payment of cost of Rs.1,000/- C.P. to the complainant.

4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order dated 26.04.2023, the revisionist has preferred this revisional application.

5. Learned Advocate appearing for the revisionist has urged that the impugned order dated 26.04.2023 is bad in law and on facts. Learned Advocate for the petitioner was out of station for his another case and the reply was prepared and endorsed. He has further urged that the opposite party of the case was present and submitted the copy to the Bench where the Learned President was present and did not accept the said reply due to non availability of notarial ticket.

6. It was further urged that the opposite party never prayed for time for filing reply as because the reply was ready and filed but due to technical ground and non availability of notarial ticket on the affidavit it has not been accepted though the notarial ticket is not mandatory in the consumer case.

7. He has further urged that the actual fact has not been mentioned in the order dated 26.04.2023. Learned Forum below erred by not accepting the reply for non availability of notarial ticket on the reply which is not a mandatory provision in law. So, the revisional application should be allowed and the said order should be set aside.

8. Having heard the Learned Advocate appearing for the revisionist and on careful perusal of the materials on record it appears to us that 26.04.2023 was fixed for filing reply. Though the opposite party was present in person but not ready to file their reply. In such situation, Learned Commission below for the ends of justice adjourned the case and opportunity for filing reply by the opposite party was given subject to payment of cost of Rs.1,000/- C.P. to the complainant.

9. It appears to us that the opportunity for filing reply by the opposite party was not closed by the Learned Commission below and the opportunity for filing written reply was given for the ends of justice to the opposite party. As such, we are of the view that the Learned Additional District Commission below has rightly passed the order granting the opportunity to file reply by the opposite party subject to payment of cost of Rs. 1,000/- C.P. to the complainant. Thus, Learned Additional District Commission has exercised the jurisdiction properly vested in it under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

10. We are of the view that the said observations as made by the Learned Additional District Commission below can be supported.

11. Therefore, we find no irregularity in the impugned order passed by the Learned Additional District Commission. Therefore, we are of the view that this revision petition has no merits at all. So, it is dismissed in limini.

12. Learned Additional District Commission is directed to decide the same as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order passed by this Commission.

13. The revisional application is thus disposed of accordingly.

14. Let a copy of this order be sent down to the Learned Additional District Commission below at once.