HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT MANDAL, PRESIDENT

1. This revisional application has been filed by the revisionist under section 47(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019  ( in short, ‘the Act’) challenging  the impugned order No. 13 dated 23.03.2023 passed by the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata, Unit III (South) in connection with consumer case No. CC/3/2022 thereby rejecting the application for appointment of a legal guardian for representing the minor opposite party No. 2 by the complainant. The complainant / revisionist filed a complaint case against the opposite parties / respondents praying for the following reliefs :-

“i) The Hon’ble Commission may kindly be pleased to direct the Opposite Parties hand over the owners allocation to the complainant as per the terms and condition of the development agreement dated 01.06.2011.

ii) The Hon’ble Commission may kindly be pleased to direct the Opposite Parties to hand over the completion certificate issued by Raiganj Municipal Corporation.

iii) That the Hon’ble Commission may kindly be pleased to direct the Opposite Parties to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- only to the Complainant as compensation and direct the Opposite Parties to pay further sum of Rs.50,000/- only to Complainant as litigation cost.

iv) Any other relief or reliefs that the Complainant is entitled to in law and in equity.”

2. The opposite parties except opposite party No. 2 / respondents entered appearance in this case and contested the case by filing written version.

3. During the pendency of the case, the complainant filed an application for appointment of a legal guardian for representing the minor opposite party No. 2 and the said application for appointment of a legal guardian was registered as MA/48/2023.

4. After hearing both sides, Learned District Commission below has been pleased to reject the said M.A. Application being No. 48/2023 by the impugned order.

5. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order passed by the Learned District Commission below, the revisionist has preferred this revisional application.

6. The Learned Advocate appearing for the revisionists has urged that the opposite party No. 2 namely Sumitra Deb passed away living behind a daughter who is minor. He has further urged that the petitioner filed an application for appointment of a guardian of the said minor. But the said application has been rejected without going through the merit of the application for appointment of a guardian. He has further urged that the Learned Commission below was in a hurry while passing the impugned order dated 23.03.2023. So, the revisional application filed by the revisionist should be allowed and the impugned order should be set aside.

7. Having heard the Learned Advocate appearing for both the parties and on careful perusal of the record it appears to us that the application for appointment of a legal guardian for representing the minor / opposite party No. 2 was rejected by the Learned Commission below and the Learned Commission below has been pleased to pass the order which is reproduced as under :-

                   “At the very outset it may be pertinent to point out that this Commission is not empowered to appoint a guardian ad litem in a proceeding under the provision of Consumer Protection Act. Code of Civil Procedure in a complaint filed under Consumer Protection Act has limited application and so question of application of order XXXII Rule 3 of C.P.C. does not arise. Similarly under Guardian and Wards Act and similar Act, District Court having jurisdiction is empowered to entertain an application to appoint or declare a person to be guardian. So petition being not maintainable is liable to be rejected. Be it mentioned here that vide order dated 08.06.2022 Ld. members had allowed the petition for substituting minor son of deceased OP 2 who was one of the partner in OP 1 a partnership firm. However, vide order dated 07.07.2022 it has been observed that whether partnership in a partnership firm is heritable will depend upon the terms and conditions of the partnership deed, copy of which has already been supplied to the complainant by the OP 1 & 3. In such a view of the matter, petition filed by the complainant is considered and rejected. MA/48/2023 is accordingly disposed of. Fix 30/5/2023 for taking appropriate step by the complainant.”

8. On careful perusal of the said observations of the Learned District Commission below it appears to us that the Learned District Commission below has rightly passed the above order. There is no irregularity or impropriety in passing the impugned order by the Learned District Commission below. Therefore, we are of the view that the observations as made by the Learned District Commission below can be supported.

9. In the result, we are of the view that the revision petition has no merits at all. So, it is dismissed in limini without being admitted.

10. The Learned District Commission below is directed to proceed with the complaint case and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible.

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