NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/1652/2011

M/S. LOKNATH CONSTRUCTION & ORS. - Complainant(s)

Versus

MR. TAPAN PYANE & ORS. - Opp.Party(s)

M/S. KARANJAWALA & CO.

15 Jul 2011

ORDER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

NEW DELHI

REVISION PETITION NO. 1652 OF 2011

(Against the Order dated 01/04/2011 in Appeal No. 113/2010 of the State Commission West Bengal)

1. M/S. LOKNATH CONSTRUCTION & ORS. Raikot Para, P.S.Kotwali P.O Jalpaiguri West Bangal	...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. MR. TAPAN PYANE & ORS. S/o Lt. Khagendra Nath Pyne, Basank Kunj Apartment, Silpasamit Para, P.S Kotwali Jalpaiguri West Bangal 2. GOPAL CHAKARABORTY S/o. Lt. H.P. Chakraborty, Basanta Kunja Apartment, Silpasamiti Para, P.S Kotwali Jalpaiguri West Bengal 3. Lpsita Ganguly W/o. Mr. Tapa Ganguly, Basnata Kunja Apartment, Silpasamit Para, P.s Kotwali Jalpaiguri West Bengal 4. Sweta Dutta Chowdhuri W/o Mr. Utpal Dutta Basanta Kunja Apartment, Silpasamit Para, P.S Kotwali, Jalpaiguri West Bengal 5. Dilip Chakraborty S/o Lt. Bashanta Chakraborty Basanta Kunja Apartment, Silpasamit Para, P.S Kotwali, Jalpaiguri West Bengal 6. Himangshu Bhushan Karamkar S/o . Rajendra Ch. Karamkar Basanta Kunja Apartment, Silpasamit Para, P.S Kotwali, Jalpaiguri West Bengal 7. - - - -	...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
	HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. R. KINGONKAR, PRESIDING MEMBER
	HON'BLE MR. VINAY KUMAR, MEMBER

For the Petitioner :

Ms. Astha Tyagi, Advocate Ms. Shuchi Singh, Advocate Mr. Varun Kumar, Advocate

For the Respondent :

NEMO

Dated : 15 Jul 2011

ORDER

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 2.      The revision petition is filed against order rendered by the State Commission in its revisional jurisdiction in RP No.113 of 2010. By that order, the State Commission directed appointment of Commissioner to carry out local inspection of premises in question regarding the points raised by the Complainants. Contention of the revision petitioners is that appointment of Commissioner was impermissible in terms of the agreement between the parties. It is argued by the learned counsel that when the District Consumer Forum held that appointment of Commissioner was not necessary because the work said to have been done was beyond the terms of the agreement, it was not open to the State Commission to grant the application making such appointment. 3.      There are significant aspects of the matters. Firstly, the appointment of Commissioner is an interim order against which the revision has been filed. The State Commission or the District Consumer Forum has not accepted the report of the Commissioner nor any finding is recorded on merits about the scope of the terms of reference. Because the report of the Commissioner is not executed at all, filing of the present revision petition against the order of first revisional court itself is impermissible as this amount to filing of second revision. Moreover, such interim directions do not affect rights of the revision petitioners. It is always open to the revision petitioners to pinpoint as to how the report of the Commissioner appointed by the fora below has given the report in respect of work which falls outside the pale of the terms of the agreement. The petitioners can  object  such  report  of  the  Commissioner  and demonstrate before the District Fora that the unfinished work or any defect pointed out by the Commissioner is not within the terms of the mutual agreement. With these observations, the petition is dismissed.

......................J

V. R. KINGONKAR

PRESIDING MEMBER

......................

VINAY KUMAR

MEMBER