HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT MANDAL, PRESIDENT
- This revision petition has been filed under section 47 (i) (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 ( in short, ‘the Act’) challenging the impugned order No. 9 dated 08.02.2023 passed by the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Howrah (in short, ‘the District Commission’) in connection with Misc. Application No. MA/26/2021 arising out of complaint case No. CC/230/2020. The revisionists were the complainants before the District Commission.
- Heard arguments on behalf of revisionists at length and in full.
- Perused the materials available on record including the impugned order No. 9 dated 08.02.2023, the revisional application and the documents filed on 26.06.2023 by the revisionists as per Firistee.
- The revisionists / complainants filed a complaint under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 before the District Commission being No. CC/230/2020 praying for the following reliefs :-
“i) To admit the complaint and issue show cause notice upon the Opposite Party named in the complaint.
ii) To direct the opposite party to demarcate and deliver to the complainants 40% of the built up areas forthwith without any further delay.
iii) Opposite party be restrained from allocating any flats and / or part of the built up area from his (developer’s) share of 60% till the adjudication of the instant dispute and / or compliance of the order in terms of prayer ‘b’.
iv) Ad-interim order in terms of prayer ‘b’ and ‘c’ above;
v) Opposite party be directed to deliver the completion certificate at the time of handing over the possession of the owners’ allocation to the complainants herein;
vi) To direct the opposite party to pay compensation for mental and physical harassment to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.50,000/- to the complainants;
vii) And to pass any such further directionand /or directions order and / or orders, as the Hon’ble Commission may deem fit and proper in the matter.”
- At the time of filing of the Petition of Complaint before the Learned Trial Commission, the revisionists / complainants moved an application praying for Ad-interim order of injunction and Ad-interim order of injunction was granted in favour of the revisionists / complainants.
- The revisionists / complainants filed an application being No. M.A. /26/2021 praying for passing necessary order for alleged disobedience and / or flouting the order of Ad-interim injunction dated 04.12.2020 passed by the District Commission.
- After hearing both sides Learned District Commission below was pleased to dismiss the said M.A. Application by the impugned order.
- Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order, the revisionists / complainants have preferred this revisional application.
- Upon perusal of the impugned order we find that the District Commission has passed a speaking order which is reproduced as under :-
* * * * * * * *
“...... as there are clear ambiguity and irregularity appearing in between order dated 04/12/2020 of C.C. case No.CC/230/2020 and the contents of petition of complaint and injunction application of C.C. case No.CC/230/2020 (no ‘Schedule’ is mentioned) specially on the ground of non-mentioning of schedule in the petition of complaint and injunction application and in such a case instant M.A. case is liable to be dismissed.
Though Petitioners / complainants file the documents today carry weight in their perspective but, it may be noted that as there is no mention of schedule in respect of the flats in questions in the concerned premises resulting which we cannot point out as to which flats Petitioners / complainants are alleging against the O.p. and as such it will not be just and proper to make any stringent order against O.p.
We should keep in mind that both parties certainly are law abiding citizens of India and we hope that they should restrict themselves in respect of the allocated share in the property in question, i.e. highly expected.
In the above backdrop, we must say that C.C. case No.CC/230/2020 is very much maintainable but situation demands that the in the facts and circumstances present M.A. case is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, we do that.
Thus, instant M.A. Case is disposed of .”
- The order passed by the District Commission appears just and equitable in the facts of the case. No jurisdictional error and / or legal principle ignored or miscarriage of justice is visible. Therefore, we are of the view that interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission is not warranted. So, the revisional petition has no merits at all. So, it is dismissed in limini without being admitted.
- The Learned District Commission is directed to proceed with the complaint case and dispose of 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.
- Let a copy of this order be sent down to the Learned District Commission below at once.
- Office to comply.
