17.11.2014

MR. TARAPADA GANGOPADHYAY, HON’BLE MEMBER

            The instant Revision Petition has been filed against the orders dated 10.5.13 and 14.5.13 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Burdwan, in Complaint Case No. 21 of 2011, rejecting the prayer by the Revisionist/OP No. 2 for rejection of the report by Engineer-Commissioner and fixing the date of argument without allowing any opportunity to the Revisionist/OP No. 2 to submit supplementary evidence in respect of amendment of Written Version.

          The facts of the case, in brief, are that after taking possession of the respective flats by the Respondents/Complainants pursuant to their respective agreements with the Revisionist/OP the Respondents/Complainants noticed some incomplete works and services, such as, non-installation of water-purifying plant, absence of fire-fighting equipments, absence of Completion Certificate, etc., in the flats and requested the Revisionist/OP No. 2 to complete such incomplete works and services, but to no avail.  Then the flat-owners filed the Complaint before the Ld. District Forum.  In course of hearing proceedings of the Petition of Complaint the Respondents/Complainants had prayed for appointment of an Engineer-Commissioner for on-the-spot survey about the incomplete works/services, which was allowed on contested hearing (Running Page-5 of the Revision Petition).

          After filing the report dated 13.1.2012 of the Engineer-Commissioner the Revisionist/OP No. 2 filed an objection in respect of the said report with prayer for rejection of the same, but such prayer was rejected by Order dated 10.5.2013.  Thereafter, upon filing the amended Written Version by the other side, the date of argument was fixed by Order dated 14.5.2013 without allowing the Revisionist/OP No. 2 to submit supplementary evidence in respect of the said amended written version.  With this background, the Ld. District Forum passed the impugned orders in the aforesaid manner.  Aggrieved by such orders the Revisionist/OP No. 2 has moved this Commission.

          The Ld. Advocate for the Revisionist/OP No. 2 submits in the beginning that the aggregate of the value of the flat and the reliefs claimed in the concerned Petition of Complaint has exceeded the limit of pecuniary jurisdiction of the Ld. District Forum.  It is also submitted by the Ld. Advocate that the Ld. District Forum erred in dismissing the application for rejection of the report dated 13.1.2012  by the Engineer-Commissioner ignoring the intra- contradictions of the report and the mention therein of the deviation of building rules, which do not fall under the adjudicative jurisdiction of the Ld. District Forum, but falls within the jurisdiction of the concerned Municipality.  It is further submitted by the Ld. Advocate that in not allowing the Revisionist/OP No. 2 the opportunity of submitting supplementary evidence in respect of the amended written version filed by the other side, the Ld. District Forum contravened the well-settled principle of law in this respect.  Finally, the Ld. Advocate submits that in view of the aforesaid irregularity and illegality the impugned orders should be set aside.

          The Ld. Advocate for the Respondents/Complainants submits that the argument in relation to the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Ld. District Forum is not the subject matter of the present Revision Petition and hence, such argument is irrelavent in the context of the present Revision Petition.  It is also submitted by the Ld. Advocate that as the report by the Engineer-Commissioner  was done as per order of the Ld. District Forum, then the Ld. District Forum did not commit any error in rejecting the prayer for rejection of the said report, it being an impartial one.  It is further submitted by the Ld. Advocate that the Ld. District Forum has rightly fixed a date for argument in view of the evidence already submitted.  The Ld. Advocate concludes that in view of the aforesaid position of the case, the impugned orders should be sustained.

          We have heard both the sides, considered their rival submissions and perused the materials on records.

          It is conspicuous from the materials on records, the impugned orders in particular, that the impugned order in relation to rejection of application by the Revisionist/OP No. 2 for rejection of the report of the Engineer-Commissioner is very cryptic and not based on cogent reason.  Further, the order relating to fixing of date for argument without allowing any opportunity to submit supplementary affidavit in respect of amended/additional written version is against the settled principle of law in this respect.

          Therefore, the orders dismissing the petition for rejection of the report of the Engineer-Commissioner as well as fixing the date for argument without allowing opportunity for filing supplementary evidence in respect of the amended written version are unsustainable. 

          Accordingly, the Revision Petition is allowed.  The orders under challenge are set aside.  The Ld. District Forum will allow both sides to adduce evidence and thereafter decide the case on merits according to law.