Revision Petition No. RP/102/2015 | (Arisen out of Order Dated 02/06/2015 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/6/2014 of District North 24 Parganas) |
| | 1. M/s. Neer Builder | EA/5, Deshbandhu Nagar, P.S - Baguiati, Kolkata - 700 059, Represented by its Proprietor Sri Subrata Roy. |
| ...........Appellant(s) | |
Versus | 1. Joydeb Bhattacharyya | S/o Lt. Kashinath Bhattacharyya, Flat No. - 3A, 3rd Floor, EA 6/4, Bankim Roy street, P.S - Baguiati, Dist - North 24 Pgs, Kolkata - 700 059. | 2. Smt. Utsa Bhattacharya | W/o Lt. Kashinath Bhattacharyya, Flat No. - 3A, 3rd Floor, EA 6/4, Bankim Roy street, P.S - Baguiati, Dist - North 24 Pgs, Kolkata - 700 059. | 3. MR. Rupam Dutta | S/o Hemendra Krishna Dutta, Flat No. - 3C, 3rd Floor, EA 6/4, Bankim Roy Street, P.S - Baguiati, Dist - North 24 Pgs, Kolkata - 700 059. | 4. Sri Manojit Podder | S/o Lt. Monindra Nath Podder, Flat No. - ID, Ist Floor, EA 6/4, Bankim Roy Street, P.S - Baguiati, Dist - North 24 Pgs, Kolkata - 700 059. | 5. Sri Goutam Saha | S/o Giridhari Saha, Flat No. - 1C, Ist Floor, EA 6/4, Bankim Roy Street, P.S - Baguiati, Dist - North 24 Pgs, Kolkata - 700 059. | 6. Smt. Pratima Podder | W/o Manojit Podder, Flat No. - ID, Ist Floor, EA 6/4, Bankim Roy Street, P.S - Baguiati, Dist - North 24 Pgs, Kolkata - 700 059. | 7. Supti Saha | W/o Goutam Saha, Flat No. - 1C, Ist Floor, EA 6/4, Bankim Roy Street, P.S - Baguiati, Dist - North 24 Pgs, Kolkata - 700 059. | 8. Rina Bhattarcharya | W/o Tarun Kr. Bhattacharya, Flat No. - 1B, Ist Floor, EA 6/4, Bankim Roy Street, P.S - Baguiati, Dist - North 24 Pgs, Kolkata - 700 059. | 9. Mr. Sandip Ghosh | S/o Lt. Shibu Pada Ghosh, Flat No. - 2B, 2nd Floor, BA 6/4, Bankim Roy Street, P.S - Baguiati, Dist - North 24 Pgs, Kolkata - 700 059. | 10. Arun Kumar Halder | E.A. 6/4, Bankim Roy Street, P.O - Deshbandhu Nagar, Kolkata - 700 069. | 11. The Chairman, Rajarhat Gopalpur Municipality. | Raghunathpur, Kolkata - 700 059. |
| ...........Respondent(s) |
|
|
ORDER | 28.01.2016 HON’BLE MR. SAMARESH PRASAD CHOWDHURY, PRESIDING MEMBER Challenge in this Revisional Application u/s 17(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) is to impeach the Order No. 22 dt. 2.6.2015 made by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, North 24 Parganas at Barasat (for short, ‘the Ld. District Forum’) in Consumer Complaint No. 6/2014, thereby the application filed on behalf of the OP Nos. 1 to 9 herein for appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner for inspection of the scheduled property was allowed on contest with a direction upon the Ld. Advocate-Commissioner to hold inspection in a single sitting and to submit report within seven days from the date of holding such inspection fixing submission of report by 16.7.2015. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order, the OP No. 1/Developer has preferred this Revision. We have considered the submissions advanced by the Ld. Advocates appearing for the parties and scrutinized the materials on record. Having heard the Ld. Advocates for the respective parties and going through the materials on record it emerges that the OP Nos. 1 to 9 initiated the Consumer Complaint u/s 12 of the Act for deficiency of service on the part of the Developer and the Landowner in respect of a consumer dispute relating to housing construction. During pendency of the said proceeding, an application has been filed on behalf of the Complainants of the case with a prayer for appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner for local inspection in accordance with Order 39 Rule 7 of the C.P.Code and also with a prayer to ascertain the nature and character of the apartment, ground floor, roof and whether any new construction has made or not. Needless to say, it is the Complainants who have to prove their own case. The Ld. District Forum has rightly observed that as the Complainants have to prove their case, certainly they should be given an opportunity to highlight the deficiency in services with a support of the inspection report. The impugned order clearly speaks that the Ld. District Forum keeping in view the objective behind the legislation of the Act passed the impugned order with a direction to complete the inspection as early as possible. In the order it has been categorically mentioned that the Ld. Advocate-Commissioner will inspect the locale after service of notices to both the parties and their lawyers. In that perspective, we do not find any jurisdictional illegality or material irregularity in passing the order impugned. On the contrary, the Ld. District Forum has passed a reasoned order by giving opportunity to the Complainants to substantiate their case. The revisional jurisdiction of the State Commission flows from Section 17(1)(b) of the Act and on plain reading of the section it would be evident that the revisional jurisdiction conferred on the State Commission is limited to the extent of jurisdictional illegality or material irregularity. Admittedly, there is no jurisdictional error in the order of the Ld. District Forum. The Ld. District Forum has rightly passed the order for appreciation of the consumer dispute and as such, there was no material irregularity in passing the order impugned. The Developer had no occasion to prefer the Revision, which is sheer wastage of valuable public time of this Commission and, therefore, the Revision deserves dismissal with costs which we quantify at Rs. 5,000/-. For the reasons aforesaid, the instant Revision Petition being RP No.102/2015 is dismissed on contest with cost of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) to be paid by the Petitioner, M/s. Neer Builder, i.e. the OP No. 1, in favour of the Complainants of the case. The Order No. 22 dt. 2.6.2015 passed by the Ld. District Forum in Consumer Complaint No. 6/2014 is hereby affirmed. Parties are directed to appear before the Ld. District Forum on 23.2.2016 to receive further orders from that end. On the stipulated date, OP No. 1 must show the receipt showing payment of costs before the Ld. District Forum. Otherwise, the Ld. District Forum shall pass order in accordance with law. The Registrar of this Commission is directed to send a copy of this order to the Ld. District Forum for information. | |