| Revision Petition No. RP/141/2023 | | ( Date of Filing : 01 Nov 2023 ) | | (Arisen out of Order Dated in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/333/2019 of District Nadia) |
| | | | 1. M/S BANERJEE CONSTRUCTION | | RESIDING AT 61 P.C STREET, BASU PARA, P.O. RANAGHAT, P.S. RANAGHAT, NADIA, PIN-741201. | | NADIA | | WEST BENGAL |
| ...........Appellant(s) | |
| Versus | | 1. HIMANGSU KUMAR ACHARYYA & ANOTHER | | RESIDENT OF PRIYASADAN COURT PARA, P.O.- RANAGHAT, P.S.-RANAGHAT, NADIA. PIN-741201 | | NADIA | | WEST BENGAL | | 2. PROSENJIT MUKHERJEE | | RESIDENT OF 2/187, BIJOYGARH, RAMTHAKUR SARANI, P.O.&P.S.- JADAVPUR, DIST-KOLKATA-700032 | | KOLKATA | | WEST BENGAL | | 3. MRINMOY MUKHERJEE | | RESIDENT OF 3RD FLOOR, FLAT 3B, 2701, VIDYASAGAR SARANI, PURBA PARA, P.O.- KADAMTALA, P.S.- THAKURPUKUR, DIST-KOLKATA-700063 | | KOLKATA | | WEST BENGAL | | 4. TANMOY MUKHERJEE | | RESIDENT OF 3RD FLOOR, FLAT 3B, 2701, VIDYASAGAR SARANI, PURBA PARA, P.O.- KADAMTALA, P.S.- THAKURPUKUR, DIST-KOLKATA-700063 | | KOLKATA | | WEST BENGAL | | 5. SARMISTHA BHATTACHARJEE | | RESIDENT OF 3RD FLOOR, FLAT 3B, 2701, VIDYASAGAR SARANI, PURBA PARA, P.O.- KADAMTALA, P.S.- THAKURPUKUR, DIST-KOLKATA-700063 | | KOLKATA | | WEST BENGAL | | 6. NILIMA CHATTERJEE | | RESIDENT OF SARAK PARA, P.O.&P S.- RANAGHAT, DISTRICT-NADIA, PIN- 741201 | | NADIA | | WEST BENGAL | | 7. BEAUTY CHATTACHARYA | | RESIDENT AT, PO-SUBARNAPUR, ROY ROAD, P.S.-HARINGHATA, PIN-741249 | | NADIA | | WEST BENGAL |
| ...........Respondent(s) |
|
|
| Final Order / Judgement | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT MANDAL, PRESIDENT - This revisional application is at the instance of the revisionist / opposite party and is directed against the order No. 28 dated 14.09.2023 passed by the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Krishnanagar, Nadia ( in short, ‘the District Commission’) in connection with consumer case No. CC/333/2019 whereby the additional written version filed by the revisionist / opposite party was rejected.
- Heard the Learned Advocate appearing for the revisionist at length and in full.
- Having heard the Learned Advocate appearing for the revisionist / opposite party and on perusal of the record it appears to me that the respondents herein being complainants filed a complaint case under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the Learned District Commission below on the allegation of deficiency in services on the part of the opposite party / developer for non delivery of possession of owner’s allocation in terms of the development agreement dated 20.03.2013. During pendency of the case one of the complainants namely Pratima Mukherjee passed away on 23.02.2023. Accordingly, substitution petition was filed by the complainant. The said substitution petition filed by the complainant was rejected being not pressed and the complainant filed fresh substitution petition before the Learned District Commission below on 27.04.2023. Subsequently, after hearing both the parties the said substitution petition was allowed by the Learned District Commission below and the complainant was directed to file amended version of the petition of complaint fixing 10.08.2023. Thereafter, the opposite party No. 1 filed additional written version praying for acceptance of the same before the Learned District Commission and the Learned District Commission below was pleased to reject the said additional written version by the order impugned.
- Having heard the Learned Advocate appearing for the parties and on perusal of the record it appears to me that the Learned District Commission has held that the complainant Pratima Mukherjee expired on 23.02.2023 and substitution petition filed by the complainant was allowed and the complainant was directed to file amended format of the petition of complaint.
- Learned District Commission has further held that only substitution petition has been made relating to the death of the complainant No. 2(a) namely Pratima Mukherjee. The Learned District Commission below has rightly held that the said fact does not authorise the opposite party No. 1 to file additional written version. Accordingly, additional written version filed by the opposite party No. 1 was not accepted by the Learned District Commission below.
- On perusal of the said order under challenge, I find that there is no incorrectness, illegality or impropriety in the impugned order passed by the Learned District Commission.
- In view of the matter, I hold that the order of the Learned District Commission below should not be disturbed.
- Therefore, there is nothing to interfere with the impugned order. So, the revisional application is without any merit. It is, therefore, dismissed.
- Considering the facts and circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs. Learned District Commission below is directed to dispose of the case as early as possible without granting any unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties.
- Let a copy of this order be sent to the Learned District Commission below at once.
- Office to comply.
| |
