KUNDAN KUMAR KUMAI

This is an application u/s 47 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, preferred against the order dated 18/12/2023, passed by the Ld. DCDRC, Jalpaiguri, in CC/77/2022.

The Revisionists’ case in brief is that, the OP/Complainant had filed a complaint case being CC/77/2022, claiming compensation amounting to Rs.18,50,000/- (Rupees eighteen lakhs fifty thousand) only, against the Revisionists, on the ground of deficiency of service. During the pendency of the case, after the OP/Complainant’s evidence, questionnaires and replies, the Revisionists filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the CPC which was rejected vide the impugned order.

Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the Revisionists preferred this instant revision, on the ground that the Ld. DCDRC, Jalpaiguri, had erred in law and facts, while passing the impugned order.

Decisions with Reasons

Ld. Advocate for the Revisionists, at the time of final hearing, had submitted that the amendment sought for by the petition under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the CPC, was routine and general in nature and would not change the nature and character of the case and was in fact required to decide the real controversy of the dispute. He had relied in the judgements passed in Andhra Bank Vs. ABN Ambo Bank & Ors. reported in (2007) 6 SCC 167, in Madan Lal Arora Vs. Dharam Palji MDH  Ors. reported in 2022 SCC on-line NCDRC 479 and in Sri Anup Kumar Sharma & Ors. Vs. Smt. Shanti Rani Roy & Ors. by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in CO 1872 of 2023 with CO1869 of 2023.

Ld. Advocate for the OP/Complainant, on the other hand, had countered that the proposed amendment was made to nullify the statements made on receipt of the RTI and the amendment was sought to improve the defence of the Revisionists. He had relied in the judgement passed in Pandit Malhari Mahale Vs. Monika Pandit Mahale & Ors. by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal no.189/2020.

From the copy of the amendment petition lying in the record, it transpires that apart from the dates that were sought to be amended, the main amendment as mentioned in the para 10 of the amendment petition, clearly shows that the amendment was sought, to include the decision by the Pilot-in-Command of the flight, instead of the flight not being allowed by the ATC on 04/02/2022. In any case, it was known to the Revisionists, since long, there was no reason for the Revisionists, to delay the introduction of the same at the initial stage itself, thereby making the introduction at this stage, suspect. This amendment is not only a material improvement of the defence, but also nullifies the case made by the OP/Complainant in this respect. Therefore, when the OP/Complainant, had already been subjected to face the questionnaires and submitted replies, allowing the amendment at this stage, does not arise. As a result, no illegality or irregularity had been committed by the Ld. DCDRC, Jalpaiguri, while passing the impugned order and therefore calls for no interference from this end.

In the light of the above findings and observations, the application of the principles of the above-mentioned rulings, does not arise in the changed circumstances of the case.

It is therefore,

                                                              ORDERED

That the instant revision be and the same is dismissed on contest, but without cost.

The impugned order is hereby upheld.

Copy of the order be sent to the parties, free of cost.

Copy of the order be sent to the Ld. DCDRC, Jalpaiguri, for necessary information.