Date of Hearing the 5th Day of October, 2015
Date of Judgment Thursday, the 29th Day of October, 2015
JUDGMENT
The instant Revisional Application u/s. 17(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) is at the behest of the Opposite Party Nos.1 to 3 to impeach the Order No.56 dated 16.06.2015 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jalpaiguri (In short, Ld. DCDRF) in Consumer Complaint No.74 of 2010.
The Opposite Party herein being Complainant initiated the Consumer Complaint u/s. 12 of the Act against the present Petitioners in respect of deficiency of service with regard to a residential flat measuring about 978 sq. ft. with common facilities being flat No.4B on the 3rd Floor of the building styled as ‘Ramkrishna Sarada Apartment’ lying and situated at Kotwali, P.S. & District Jalpaiguri which is part and parcel of ‘A’ Schedule property. In fact, the Complainant being intending purchaser has made allegation for deficiency of service on the part of Land Owner and Developers. The said Consumer Complaint was pending for long 5(five) years. There was a direction of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in RP No.415 of 2013 upon the District Forum to dispose of the Consumer Complaint preferably within 6(Six) months but not later than within 1(One) year. By the said Order Hon’ble National Commission directed the parties to appear before the Ld. District Forum, Jalpaiguri on 10.12.2013. In such a situation to pay respect to the spirit of the Order of the Hon’ble National Commission the proceeding should have been completed positively by the end of 2014. Incidentally, the proceeding was not concluded. The impugned Order speaks that on 16.06.2015 the Complainant was represented through his Ld. Advocate. But the Advocate appearing for the Opposite Parties retired from the case on the ground that the Opposite Parties are not keeping contact with him for a long time. It means and indicates that the Opposite Parties/Revisionists had no respect about the spirit of the Order of the Hon’ble National Commission.
Now, Section 17(1)(b) of the Act provides – ‘to call for the records and pass appropriate Orders in any Consumer Dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any District Forum within the State, where it appears to the State Commission that such District Forum has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested or has acted in exercising its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.’ It has not been canvassed that the District Forum has exercised its jurisdiction not vested in it by law or has exercise jurisdiction so vested. Therefore, it has to be seen whther DCDRF has acted in exercising of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.
Considering the submissions advanced by the Ld. Advocates appearing for the parties and on going through the materials on record it emerges that in spite of specific direction of the Hon’ble National Commission for time bound disposal, the Opposite Parties/Revisionists took three adjournments for filing questionnaire on the ground of illness of Advocate of their father. When further adjournment was refused, the Opposite Parties filed a Revisional Application being No. RP/156 of 2014 in this Commission and after considering all the aspects the said Revisional Application was allowed directing the Opposite Parties/Revisionists to file questionnaire subject to payment of costs of Rs.4,000/-. Thereafter, Opposite Parties filed questionnaire and Complainant also filed reply thereto. But thereafter, again Opposite Parties started in taking time and finally on 16.06.2015 did not take any steps. The record also speaks that on the subsequent date i.e. on 26.06.2015 a fresh Vakalatnama was filed on behalf of the Opposite Parties but simply filed a Petition with a prayer for adjournment. This goes to show that the Opposite Parties/Revisionists have no respect or regard about the purport or spirit of Order passed by the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi dated 28.11.2013 in RP No.415 of 2013. The Opposite Parties/Revisionists were well aware that the Ld. DCDRF was under obligation to conclude the hearing of the Complaint by December, 2014 but in spite of the same the Opposite Parties/Revisionists have shown masterly inactivity to proceed with the case. The Ld. DCDRF has committed no jurisdictional error in passing the Order impugned because it was boundem duty on the part of the Ld. DCDRF to comply with the Order of Hon’ble National Commission.
Therefore, the impugned Order does not suffer from any infirmity or with any material irregularity and as such the impugned Order should not be interfered with. On the contrary, the instant Revisional Application being harassing one, the Revisionist/Opposite Parties must be saddled with costs of Rs.5,000/-.
For the reasons aforesaid, the instant Revision Petition is dismissed on contest with costs of Rs.5,000/- to be paid by the Revisionists in favour of the Opposite Parties i.e. Complainant of the case. Accordingly, the Misc. Application No.714 of 2015 filed on behalf of the Opposite Party/Revisionist is allowed on contest and disposed of accordingly in favour of the Opposite Party.
The Order No.56 dated 16.06.2015 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Jalpaiguri in Consumer Complaint No.74 of 2010 is hereby affirmed.
To 16.11.2015 for appearance of the parties before the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Jalpaiguri and payment of costs. The Ld. DCDRF is directed to dispose of the case positively by December, 2015 without granting any adjournment whatsoever in accordance with the spirit of the Order of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi.
