HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT MANDAL, PRESIDENT
- This revision petition is directed against the order No. 4 dated 15.02.2023 and Order No. 9 dated 23.05.2023 passed by the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hooghly ( in short, ‘the District Commission’) in connection with complaint case No. CC/169/2022 thereby rejected the application filed by the revisionist and thereby allowed the complainant to file interrogatories against the evidence on affidavit filed by the opposite party.
- The complainant / respondent filed a complaint case against the revisionist praying for the following reliefs :-
“i) an order directing the Opposite Party to refund Rs.8,72,341/- (Rupees Eight Lakh Seventy Two Thousand Three Hundred and Forty One) only with 12% interest from date of default i.e. December, 2017 to till the date of recovery of the amount and /or to replace the existing structure at their own cost;
b) an order allowing the Complainant to remove the scrap material from his house and also allow him to sale the to minimizing his loss;
c) an order be passed directing the Opposite Party to pay to the Complainant a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Two Lakh) only as compensation for mental agony, anxiety and harassment caused to the Complainant;
d) an order be passed directing the Opposite Party to pay to the Complainant a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (One Lakh) only as litigation cost;
e) any other order or orders as the Hon’ble Forum deem fit and proper be passed to the ends of justice.”
3. The revisionist / opposite party entered appearance in this case and filed a maintainability application being No. M.A./66/2022 before the Learned District Commission. The Learned District Commission after hearing the same was pleased to dismiss the said M.A. application being No. M.A./66/2022 and directed the complainant to file interrogatories against the evidence on affidavit filed by the opposite party.
4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the above orders the revisionist has preferred this revisional application.
5. Learned Advocate appearing for the revisionist has urged that the Learned District Commission has exercised its jurisdiction not vested in it under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
6. He has further urged that the Learned District Commission was completely wrong in dismissing the M.A. application. The Learned District Commission committed illegally in bypassing the steps by not giving any opportunity to the petitioner to file their interrogatories / questionnaire against the affidavit in chief filed by the complainant.
7. He further urged that the impugned orders dated 15.02.2023 and 23.05.2023 are bad in law. So, the revisional application should be allowed and the impugned orders should be set aside.
8. Having heard the Learned Advocate appearing for the revisionist and on perusal of the materials on record it appears to us that the maintainability application was rejected by the District Commission. It also appears to us that on 23.05.2023 the opposite party filed evidence on affidavit which was kept with the record and the complainant was given opportunity to file interrogatories against the evidence on affidavit filed by the opposite party. Therefore, we find no illegality in the order No. 9 dated 23.05.2023.
9. On perusal of the record it appears to us that the Learned District Commission has held that the availability of the alternative remedies is not a bar for entertaining a complainant under the Consumer Protection Act though there is arbitration clause in the agreement entered between the parties. We are of the same view that alternative remedies is not a bar for entertaining a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act. As such, the application for challenging the maintainability of the case has not been succeeded and the M.A. application being No. M.A./66/2022 was dismissed. Thus, the Learned District Commission has exercised its jurisdiction properly vested in it under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
10. We are also of the view that the said observation as made by the Learned District Commission below can be supported. Therefore, we find no irregularity in the impugned order passed by the Learned District Commission. Therefore, we are of the view that the revision petition has no merit at all. So, it is dismissed in limini.
11. The revisional application is thus disposed of accordingly.
12. The Learned District Commission is directed to decide the complaint case as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.
13. Let a copy of this order be sent down to the Learned District Commission at once.
