HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT MANDAL, PRESIDENT
- This revision petition is directed against the order No. 8 dated 14.03.2023 passed by the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata, Unit II (Central) ( in short, ‘the District Commission’ ) in connection with consumer case No. CC/84/2022 thereby the Interlocutory Application being Nos. M.A./365/2022, M.A./684/2022 and M.A./729/2022 were kept open to be heard along with the merit of the case.
- The Opposite Parties No. 1 & 2 being the complainants filed a complaint case against the revisionists and others praying for the following reliefs :-
“a) To admit the case and to direct service of notice upon the Opposite Parties directing them to Show Cause as to the reliefs prayed for in the instant application should not be granted in favour of the complainants.
b) To direct the Opposite Parties to refund back the entire invested amount i.e. Rs.19,43,943/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of receipt of the same till the date of actual payment to the complainants.
c) To direct the Opposite Parties to pay compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- (Eighteen Lakhs) for non-compliance of the “Agreement for Sale” dated 20.09.2013 within stipulated time and monetary loss of the complainants.
d) To direct the Opposite Parties to pay Rs.3,00,000/- (Three Lakhs) as compensation and punitive damages for their unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.
e) To direct the Opposite Parties to pay Rs.2,00,000/- (Two Lakhs) as compensation for mental agony and harassment caused to the complainants.
f) To direct the Opposite Parties to pay the cost of litigation which is assessed at Rs.40,000/- (Forty Thousand).
g) To pass such other relief or reliefs as the Learned Commission may deem fit and proper.”
3. The Opposite Parties No. 6,7,8 & 9 entered appearance in this case and contested the case. The Opposite Party No. 6 filed two M.A. Applications being Nos. M.A./684/2022 and M.A./729 /2022 praying for expunging his name from the consumer complaint. The Opposite Parties No. 7,8 & 9 also filed an application being No. M.A./365/2022 praying for dismissal of the case against the Opposite Parties No. 7,8 & 9 / revisionists and also praying for deletion of names of Opposite Parties No. 7,8 & 9 / revisionists from the cause title of the petition of complaint.
4. On 14.03.2023 Learned District Commission heard the Learned Advocate appearing for both the parties over the M.A. Application Nos. M.A./729/2022 and M.A./684/2022. After hearing Learned Commission below was pleased to hold that M.A. Applications were kept open to be heard along with the merit of the case by the impugned order.
5. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order passed by the Learned Commission below the revisionists / Opposite Parties No. 7,8 & 9 have preferred this revisional application.
6. Learned Advocate appearing for the revisionists has submitted that Learned District Commission has failed to appreciate that the complaint was filed only with the objective to harass the revisionists and such complaint was drafted without any proper perusal of the Register of Companies. He has further submitted that Learned District Commission has failed to appreciate that the documents taken from the Register of Companies clearly establishes that there was no relation between the revisionists and the respondent No. 3 Company when the complainant entered into the transaction. He has further submitted that the Hon’ble Commission below is bad in law by not dismissing the complaint. He has further submitted that the revisional application should be allowed and the impugned order should be set aside.
7. Having heard the Learned Advocate appearing for both the parties and on perusal of the record it appears to us that whether there was any relation between the revisionist and the respondent No. 3 Company or not that will be considered at the time of final hearing after taking of evidence of both the parties. Whether the revisionists Ajoy Kumar Shroff, Amarnath Shroff and Sheo Kumar Kajaria have resigned as the Directors of the Opposite Party No. 3 or not and whether the said alleged resignation submitted by them were accepted or not and it was recorded in the Register of Companies or not that will be considered after taking of evidence of both the parties. By the I.A. Applications being Nos. M.A./684/2022, M.A./729/2022 respondent No. 6 has prayed for expunging his name from the complaint case. By another application being No. IA/365/2022, the revisionists have prayed for dismissal of the case.
8. We think that it is the choice of the complainants against whom the complainants will file the case. The respondents / Opposite Parties No. 7,8 & 9 have no right to pray for expunging the names from the cause title of the petition of complaint. They can only pray for dismissal of the complaint case filed against them only. Learned Commission below was of the view that issue raised in the said I.A. Applications being Nos. M.A./365/2022, M.A./729/2022 & M.A./684/2022 were kept open and to be heard along with the merit of the case.
9. We think that the Learned 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 the revision petition has no merit at all. So, it is dismissed in limini with cost of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand) only to be paid by the revisionists in favour of the SCWF.
11. The revisionists are directed to make payment of such costs within fifteen days from the date of issuance of this order. The revisionists are also directed to file the copy of the money receipt before the Learned District Commission below.
12. The revisional application is, thus, disposed of accordingly.
13. Learned District Commission is directed to proceed with the complaint case on perusing the copy of the money receipt. The Learned District Commission below is also directed to decide the same as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order passed by this Commission.
14. Let a copy of this order be sent down to the Learned District Commission below at once.
