Sri Subhra Sankar Bhatta, Presiding Member

The present Revisional Application under Section 47(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 has been preferred at the instance of the Revisionist/Petitioner against the Respondent Nos. 1 to 7 challenging the impugned order dated 18.05.2023 vide order no. 41 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Baruipur Kolkata in connection with consumer complaint case no. CC/79/2020 whereby Ld. District Commission was pleased to pass the following order:-

“ORDERED

That the petition filed today by the Complainant with a prayer to recall/review of the order dated 02.05.2023 is hereby considered and rejected on contest with cost of Rs.1,000/- (C.P.) to be paid by the Complainant to OP No. 7.

Fix 26.05.2023 for hearing argument and payment of all costs by the Complainant as per Order no. 40 dated 02.05.2023 and the instant one i.d. legal consequences will follow. No further time shall be allowed under any circumstances and both the parties are directed to come ready on the date fixed.

To date for filing BNA.”

Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the above order of the Ld. District Commission the Complainant as Revisionist/Petitioner has preferred the present Revision Petition on various grounds as highlighted in the body of the Revision Petition. It has been contended that the impugned order of the Ld. District Commission is misconceived, erroneous and contrary to law; that the Ld. District Commission has failed to appreciate the actual facts and circumstances of the case; that the Ld. Commission below has wrongly upheld and interpreted the contentions of the Complainant and discarded the merits of the petition; that the Ld. District Commission has passed the impugned order ignoring the decided legal propositions and principles. It has been also contended that the present Revisionist/Petitioner also filed a transfer application before the Hon’ble State Consumer Commission and the Hon’ble State Commission admitted the said T.A. application being no. 01/2023. According to the Revisionist/Petitioner if the Complainant proceeds with the CC case being no. 79/2020 in that case the transfer application will be infructuous and the Hon’ble State Commission will be dishonoured. It is the specific contention of the Revisionist/Petitioner that until and unless the transfer application is disposed of prudent it will not be prudent for the Petitioner/Complainant to proceed with the Complaint Case which is still pending before the Ld. District Commission. It has been further contended that the Revisionist/Petitioner has prayed for transferring of the complaint case to the Sealdah District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission for the interest of justice. It has been also contended that awarding costs of Rs.500/- vide order no. 40 dated 2^nd May, 2023 and Rs.1,000/- vide order no. 41 dated 18.05.2023 passed by the Ld. District Commission at Baruipur is highly illegal and unconstitutional. It has been alleged that the Ld. District Commission has intentionally and deliberately awarded the said costs in the complaint case out of revenge. The Revisionist/Petitioner has prayed for allowing the present Revision Petition after setting aside the impugned order dated 18.05.2023 vide order no. 41 for the interest of justice.

On the other hand Respondent No. 1 and Respondent no. 2 entered appearance in the present Revision Petition by filing proper vokalatnama and have been contesting the Revision Petition. Despite availing chance Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 failed to present proper vokalatnama on their behalf to contest the present Revision Petition. Similarly, Respondent Nos. 5, 6 and 7 did not turn up to contest despite service of notice. Consequently, the Revision Petition was proceeded ex parte against Respondent Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7.

During the course of hearing Ld. Counsel appearing for the contesting Respondents has drawn our attention to the impugned order dated 18.05.2023 (vide order no. 41) and also the previous order dated 02.05.2023 (vide order no. 40) and vehemently argued that the Ld. District Commission was pleased to pass those orders after considering the deletary tactics adopted by the Revisionist Petitioner/Complainant in the complaint case. He has also submitted that at the time of passing those two orders there was no stay order of the complaint case from the Hon’ble State Commission. He has further submitted that mere filing of transfer application cannot be considered automatic stay of the complaint case. Practically, at the relevant point of passing those two orders transfer application was pending before the Hon’ble State Commission but no stay order was granted by the Hon’ble State Commission. According to the Ld. Counsel the Ld. District Commission was perfectly justified in passing those two orders in the complaint case. Ld. Counsel has prayed for outright dismissal of the Revision Petition with costs.

Admittedly, Hon’ble First Bench of the State Commission was pleased to pass stay order in the IA being no. 397/2023 arising out of transfer application no. TA/01/2023 on 12^th June, 2023 vide order no. 6. It is apparent from the materials available on record that the impugned order was passed on 18^th May, 2023 vide order no. 41 by the Ld. District Commission. Thus, it can be safely held that at the time of passing the impugned order there was no stay of the complaint proceeding by the Hon’ble State Commission. Mere filing of transfer application does not act as a stay of the complaint proceeding. On careful perusal of the impugned order passed by the Ld. District Commission we do not find any irregularity, impropriety or illegality in the said order. The observations and ultimate conclusion arrived at by the Ld. District Commission do not deserve any interference by this Revisional Court. We do not find much substance in the argument advanced by the Revisionist/Petitioner.

Considering all aspects from all angles and having considered the submissions of both sides and keeping in mind the position of law we hold and firmly hold that the present Revision Petition filed by the Revisionist/Petitioner is liable to be dismissed.

No interference of the impugned order is required.

Thus, the Revision Petition hopelessly fails.

It is, therefore,

O R D E R E D

That the present Revision Petition being RP no. 79/2023 is dismissed on contest against Respondent Nos.  1&2 and ex parte against the rest but considering the circumstances without no order as to costs.

The impugned order dated 18.05.2023 vide order no. 41 passed by the Ld. District Commission at Baruipur in connection with complaint case no. CC/79/2020 is hereby affirmed.

Interim stay, if any, be vacated at once.

Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the Ld. District Commission forthwith for information and taking necessary action.

Thus, the Revision Petition stands disposed of.

Note accordingly.