HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT MANDAL, PRESIDENT

1. This revision petition is directed against the order No. 10 dated 23.12.2022 passed by the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata, Unit III (South), West Bengal (in short, ‘the District Commission’) in connection with consumer case No. CC/524/2021 thereby the interlocutory application for appointment of an engineer commissioner / LBS was rejected by the Learned District Commission below.  The revisionist being the complainant filed a complaint case against the respondent praying for the following reliefs :-

“i) To admit the case and to direct service of notice upon the Opposite Parties;

ii) To direct the Opposite Parties more particularly the opposite party nos. 1 to 3  to hand over the exact area of flat as per the Plan attached with the Deed of Conveyance dated 29^th June 2018 being 937 sq. ft. more or less situated in the Ground floor being flat no. GI, situated at Plot No.- DE/112, Action Area-I, New Town, P.S.- Newtown, North 24 Parganas forthwith;

iii) To appoint Engineer Commissioner to ascertain the area of the flat as per the Plan attached with the Deed of Conveyance dated 29^th June 2018 being 937 sq. ft. more or less;

iv) To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty lac) only for their unfair means of trade practice and compensation for mental agony and for causing loss and damages to the complainant as mentioned in paragraph no. 13 herein above;

v) To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.50,000/- towards litigation cost;

vi) To pass such other relief or reliefs as the Learned Commission deem fit & proper.”

2. The complaint case filed by the revisionist / complainant was admitted and notices were duly served upon the opposite parties.

3. The opposite parties entered appearance in this case before the Learned District Commission below and filed their written version. During the pendency of the case the revisionist / petitioner / complainant filed an application for appointment of Engineer Commissioner and / or Licensed Building Surveyor (LBS) to inspect the property and the area of the flat in dispute.

4. The Learned District Commission after hearing both the parties was pleased to reject the application for appointment of Engineer Commissioner and / or Licensed Building Surveyor (LBS) by the order impugned.

5. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned order the revisionist / petitioner / complainant has filed the revisional application.

6. Heard the Learned Advocate appearing for both the parties. Perused the revisional application and also perused the record.

7. Having heard the Learned Advocate appearing for both the parties and on perusal of the record it appears to us that in the application for appointment of an Engineer Commissioner / LBS the revisionist has claimed that two small rooms were constructed by the opposite parties from one side of the wall of her flat in the common area thereby encroaching the common area she was entitled to enjoy. As such, the revisionist / petitioner has prayed for appointment of Engineer Commissioner to inspect the property and area of the revisionist / complainant’s flat.

8. Having heard both sides and on perusal of the record we are of the view that power of appointment of a Commissioner for local investigations cannot be exercised by the court to enable any party to collect evidence through the Commissioner to prove whether two small rooms were constructed by the opposite parties from one side of the wall of her flat in the common area of the complainant’s flat or not as the said aspect is a matter of evidence. Therefore, Learned District Commission below has rightly held that the complainant is trying to gather evidence to address a personal grievance and, as such, the application was rejected by the Learned District Commission below.

9. We think that Learned District Commission below has exercised the jurisdiction properly vested in it under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

10. We are of the view that the said opinion as made by the Learned District Commission below be supported. Therefore, we find no irregularity in the order passed by the Learned District Commission below. Therefore, we are of the view that this revision petition has no merit at all. So, it is dismissed in limini.

11. The revisional application is thus disposed of accordingly.

12. Parties are directed to appear before the Learned District Commission below on 01.11.2023 for receiving further direction.

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