No. 3/14.01.2011.

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI PRABIR KUMAR SAMANTA, PRESIDENT.

Revision Petitioner through Mr. P. Banerjee, the Ld. Advocate and O.P. through Mr. Sudipta Bose, the Ld. Advocate are present.

This revisional application is directed against the order dated 02.08.2010 passed by the Forum below thereby rejecting the petition for amendment of the complaint petition filed before the Forum below.  The Complainant filed the complaint case alleging various defects and deficiencies by the O.Ps in delivering possession of the flat in question.  In course of the proceeding before the Forum below a petition for amendment of the said complaint case was filed whereby certain other defects and deficiencies that still remain to be rectified by the O.Ps were sought to be brought in by way of the said amendment petition.  The Forum below has rejected the said petition for amendment only on the ground that such defects and deficiencies were very much within the knowledge of the Complainant while the complaint case was filed and, therefore, it could not be said that the said deficiencies were not within its knowledge so as to permit him to bring them on record by way of amendment.

Upon hearing the Ld. Advocate for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case we are of the view that the Consumer Protection Act does not provide for applying strict rule of pleading for the purpose of disposal of consumer case.  If strict rule of pleading is not applicable for the purpose of disposal of the consumer cases and the principle of natural justice is the only requirement to be observed for the purpose of such disposal, it cannot be said that the pleadings cannot be amended unless such amendment is permissible under the Civil Procedure Code.  On the contrary to avoid multiplicity of proceedings all defects and deficiencies that are in existence should be brought before the Forum for its adjudication.  If such defects and deficiencies are brought before the Consumer Court by way of amendment before leading any evidence then there would be chance for the O.P. to defend himself.  It, therefore, cannot be denied merely because the Complainant may have prior knowledge of the same before filing the complaint case.  The primary question being the deficiency in service for the purpose of determination of this consumer case whatever may be the deficiencies that may be brought before the Forum should be decided on merits. 

For the reasons aforesaid we are of the view that the impugned order rejecting the petition for amendment of the complaint has been made with material irregularity in its exercise of jurisdiction by the Forum below.  Hence the impugned order is set aside.  The petition for amendment as filed by the Complainant shall accordingly stand allowed.