HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT MANDAL, PRESIDENT

1. The instant revision petition under section 47(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 ( in short, ‘the Act’) is at the instance of the revisionists / opposite party Nos. 1,2 & 3 to assail the order no. 61 dated 18/10/2022 passed by the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ( in short, ‘District Commission’) passed in connection with complaint case No. CC/302/2017 whereby Learned District Commission was pleased to reject the application filed by the opposite parties / revisionists.

2. The respondent No. 1 as complainant filed a complaint case under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the revisionists and others praying for the following reliefs :-

“a) Provide physical possession of the ‘C’ Schedule property as well as one garage space measuring about 120 Sq. Ft., as per agreed terms of the Supplementary (Development) Agreement dated 9^th day of June, 2014;

b) Payment of a sum of Rs.28,000/- (Rupees Twenty Eight Thousand ) only as per agreed terms of the Supplementary (Development) Agreement dated 9^th day of June, 2014;

c) Make proper repairing, plastering and colouring of the damaged condition flat mentioned in ‘B’ Schedule property and / or to provide the requisite fund or money for the aforesaid works after assessment of damage by appointing reputed valuer for the same;

d) Pay compensation at the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs) only for immense harassment and mental torture and agony for long ten years and depriving her for getting her legitimate and bonafide claim and for the deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party;

e) Pay further compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand) only to the Complainant for providing defective goods and deficiency of services and not redressed after repeated representations;

f) Pay legal expenses of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five Thousand) only;

g) To provide the Complainant Completion Certificate in respect to the Schedule ‘A’ property;

h) Restrain the Opposite Parties from disturbing the peaceful possession of the Complainant in respect to the ‘B’ Schedule Flat;

i) Necessary orders as to costs;

j) Such further order or orders be passed and/or direction and / or direction be given as to this jHon’ble Forum may fit and proper in granting relief/reliefs to the complainant.”

3. The revisionists / opposite party No. 1,2 & 3 entered appearance in this case and were contesting the case by filing written version. 

4. On 18/10/2022 the opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 filed fresh Vakalatnama on their behalf and filed application praying for giving an opportunity to them to file questionnaire. On that date i.e. on 18/10/2022 the said application praying for giving an opportunity to file questionnaire was rejected by the impugned order.

5. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order the revisionists / opposite party Nos. 1,2 & 3 have preferred this revisional application. Now, the question is whether the impugned order should be sustained.

6. Learned Advocate appearing for the revisionists / opposite party Nos. 1,2 &3 has submitted that Learned Commission below has failed to consider the situation of the revisionists / opposite party Nos. 1,2 & 3 while passing the impugned order. The impugned order is highly irregular and caused miscarriage of justice. Learned Commission below has miserably failed to apply its judicial mind while passing the impugned order. The impugned order has caused a serious damage to the opposite party Nos. 1,2 & 3. The impugned order also caused prejudice to the opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 which could make the revisionists in monetary stringency. In such situation, the impugned order is bad in law and not maintainable according to law. So, the revisional application should be allowed and the impugned order should be set aside.

7. Having heard the Learned Advocate appearing for the revisionists / opposite party Nos. 1,2 & 3 it appears to us that the opposite party Nos. 1,2 & 3 entered appearance in complaint case No. 302/2017 and were contesting the case.

8. It is also found that on 18/10/2022 the opposite party   Nos. 1,2 & 3 filed a petition praying for giving them an opportunity to file questionnaire and the said application filed by the opposite party Nos. 1,2 & 3 was rejected by the Learned District Commission by the impugned order. The impugned order dated 18/10/2022 is reproduced as under :-

“Order No. 61

Order dated : 18.10.2022

Complainant is personally present. A fresh vakalatnama is filed today on behalf of the O.Ps along with a petition praying to give an opportunity to the O.Ps to file the questionnaire. Ld. Advocate appearing for the O.Ps is heard. On perusal of the record it appears that inspite of repeated opportunities given questionnaire was not filed by the O.Ps. Vide order dated 27.6.2022 the opportunity to file questionnaire by the O.Ps has already been closed. So, the petition filed by the O.Ps today is considered and rejected. However, for ends of justice an opportunity is given to the O.Ps to file evidence and thus fix 5.12.2022 for filing O.Ps’ evidence as last chance.”

9. On careful perusal of the said order it appears to us that several opportunities were given to the opposite parties for filing questionnaire. But the opposite parties did not avail the said opportunity and did not file the questionnaire at all. As such, the opportunity for filing questionnaire was closed on 27/06/2022.

10. The Consumer Protection Act stipulates that every complaint shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible and endeavour shall be made to decide the complaint within a period of three months from the date of receipt of notice by the opposite party where the complaint does not require analysis or testing of commodities and within five months, if it requires analysis or testing of commodities.

11. In such situation there is no necessity and justification to allow the revisional application and thereby to drag the case further. We find that there is no illegality and / or irregularity in the order passed by the Learned District Commission. So, the impugned order passed by the Learned District Commission is within the jurisdiction which is not bad in law. There is no scope to interfere with the impugned order.

12. Therefore, the present revisional application filed by the revisionist / opposite party Nos. 1,2 & 3 cannot be entertained and is liable to be dismissed.

13. In the result, the revisional application filed by the opposite party Nos. 1,2 & 3 is dismissed.

14. Considering the facts and circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.

15. The Learned District Commission is directed to proceed with the complaint case and decide the same as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order passed by this Commission.

16. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Learned District Commission at once.