HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT MANDAL, PRESIDENT
- This revision petition is at the instance of the revisionist / complainant and is directed against the order No. 15 dated 09/05/2014 passed by the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, North 24 Parganas at Barasat ( in short, ‘the District Commission’) in connection with consumer case No. CC/144/2020 whereby the Learned District Commission was pleased to accept the report submitted by the Learned Engineer Commissioner dated 10/08/2023. The revisionist / complainant being the complainant filed a petition / complaint being No. CC/144/2020 against the respondents praying for the following reliefs :-
“i) The Opposite Parties be directed to remove and repair the defects and complete the incomplete works of the schedule mentioned flat within such stipulated period as may be directed by the Hon’ble Commission.
ii) The Opposite Parties be directed to legalize the illegal construction of the schedule mentioned flat by revise the sanction plan from car parking space to flat and subsequently be directed to provide completion certificate of the building to the Complainant within such stipulate time as may be directed by the Hon’ble Commission.
iii) The Opposite Parties be directed to provide alternative flat in the same range along with same amenities and facilities in case of failure to comply the prayer as stated in clause (i) & (i) within such stipulated time as may be directed by the Hon’ble Commission.
iv) The Opposite Parties be directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant on the ground of mental pain, agony, anxiety and unnecessary harassment within such stipulated time as may be directed by the Hon’ble Commission.
v) Interim relief.
vi) The Opposite Parties be directed to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the Complainant as litigation cost.
vii) Any other relief to which the Complainant is entitled to get under law, equity and natural justice.“
- Notices were duly issued upon the opposite parties and the opposite parties entered appearance in this case by filing written version and are contesting the case.
- During the pendency of the case the Engineer Commissioner was appointed for proper investigation and for submitting the picture of actual condition of the disputed flat.
- After holding inspection the Learned Engineer Commissioner submitted his report dated 10/08/2023. After submission of the report the complainant files an application praying for rejection of the said Commissioner’s report. The Learned District Commission after hearing both sides has been pleased to reject the petition filed by the revisionist / complainant by the order impugned.
- Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order, the revisionist / complainant has preferred this revisional application.
- Now, I shall have to consider as to whether the impugned order should be sustained.
- Having heard the Learned Advocate appearing for the parties and on perusal of the record it appears to me that the Learned Engineer Commissioner produced the photographs which were taken during the course of commission work and the said photographs contain the photographs of the complainant and the opposite party. This fact proves that the Learned Engineer Commissioner holds the inspection work in presence of both the parties. It also appears to me that the Learned Engineer Commissioner gave his report in respect of the points which were mentioned in the petition for appointment of Engineer Commissioner.
- On perusal of the record it was also found that there is no gross negligence on the part of the Engineer Commissioner rather the Engineer Commissioner has tried his level best to give all the answers as per the points as mentioned in the application for appointment of Engineer Commissioner. This apart, in the application the revisionist / complainant has nowhere stated as regards any point regarding his objection against the report of the Engineer Commissioner.
- Under these facts and circumstances, I hold that the Learned District Commission has rightly held that there is no sufficient reason to reject the report submitted by the Engineer Commissioner.
- On perusal of the said order under challenge, I find that there is no incorrectness, illegality or impropriety in the impugned order passed by the Learned District Commission.
- In view of the matter I hold that the order of the Learned District Commission below should not be disturbed. Therefore, there is nothing to interfere with the impugned order. So, the revisional application is without any merit. It is, therefore, dismissed.
- Considering the facts and circumstances of this case there will be no order as to costs.
- Learned District Commission below is directed to dispose of this case as early as possible preferably within a period of two months from the date of passing of this order.
- Let a copy of this order be sent to the Learned District Commission below at once.
- Office to comply.
