HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT MANDAL, PRESIDENT
- This revision petition has been filed under section 47 (1) (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 ( in short, ‘the Act’), challenging the order No. 3 dated 03.11.2022 passed by the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hooghly ( in short, ‘the District Commission’) in connection with case No. M.A./51/2022 arising out of complaint case No. CC/55/2020 whereby application for maintainability of the case filed by the opposite parties was rejected.
- The respondent Nos. 1 & 2 being complainants instituted a complaint case being No. CC/55/2020 praying for the following reliefs :-
“a) an order directing the opposite parties to hand over the possession of the ‘B’ schedule mentioned flat and ‘C’ schedule mentioned shop-room/garage within the period fixed by the Hon’ble Commission after completion of the construction work of the same as per specification specified in the schedule of the agreement for sale in respect of the flat and shop-room/garage;
b) an order directing the opposite parties to execute and Register Sale Deeds in favour of the complainants in respect of the ‘B’ schedule mentioned flat and ‘C’ schedule mentioned shop-room / garage within the period fixed by the Hon’ble Commission on receiving the balance consideration price to be calculated as per the agreement for sale executed between the parties to this case;
c) an order directing the opposite party no. 1 (a) and 1(b) to pay Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainants as compensation for mental agony and anxieties caused by them;
d) an order directing the opposite party no. 1(a) and 1 (b) to pay Rs.50,000/- for deficiency in service on their part;
e) an order directing the opposite party no. 1(a) and 1(b) to pay Rs.50,000/- to the complainants for unfair trade practice by the opposite party No. 1 (a) and 1 (b);
f) an order directing the opposite party no. 1(a) and 1(b) to pay Rs.30,000/- to the complainants as litigation cost;
g) any other relief / reliefs which the complainants are entitled in law and equity.”
3. Notices were duly served upon the revisionists / opposite parties. Revisionists / opposite parties entered appearance in this case by filing written version. The revisionists / opposite parties also filed an application praying for dismissal of the complaint case being No. CC/55/2020 as the same is not maintainable.
4. Learned District Commission below was pleased to reject the said M.A. application No. CC/55/2020 as the M.A application was found not maintainable in the eye of law by the order impugned.
5. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned order No. 3 dated 03.11.2022 the revisionists / petitioners have filed the present revisional application. Heard argument of the Learned Counsel for the revisionists / petitioners.
6. Perused the materials on record including, inter alia, the order No. 3 dated 03.11.2022 of the District Commission and the petitioner. The dispute relates to hand over the possession of the suit flat and the suit room and the suit shop room and garage in favour of the complainants by the opposite parties.
7. The District Commission vide its order No. 3 dated 03.11.2022 rejected the M.A. application being No. CC/55/2022. The order was passed on contest, after according the opportunity to both the parties.
8. The revisionists / opposite parties filed this revisional application praying for setting aside of the impugned order.
9. The District Commission has passed the following speaking order :-
“After going through the material of the case record it appears that the complainants already have paid consideration money and on close examination of the petition filed by the ops it appears that the plea adopted by the ops is contradictory as because at one hand the ops have stated that no agreement has been executed but on the other hand at page 4 of the said petition ops have stated that there is no delay in construction and/or handing over the said flat and complainants fully satisfied with the said flat. Moreover for argument sake if it is taken into consideration that booking has been cancelled but the ops are duty bound to pay back the consideration amount along with interest @ 9% per annum to the consumer in the event of failure to deliver possession of the flat and non- execution and non-registration of the flat. Over this issue the case laws which are reported in AIR2022SC1824 and 2022(2) CPR 423 (NC) are important. By following the observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court which is reported in AIR2022SC1824 and Hon'ble National Commission which is reported in 2022(2) CPR 423 (NC), this District Commission are of the view that this District Commission has jurisdiction to try this case and the application which has been filed the ops in this MA case is found not maintainable in the eye of law.
In the result
it is accordingly
ordered
that this M.A. case no. 51 of 2022 be and the same is dismissed on contest.”
10. The impugned order No. 3 dated 03.11.2022 passed by the Learned District Commission, appears just and equitable in the facts of the case. No palpable, crucial error in appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case is visible, no jurisdictional error, or a legal principle ignored or miscarriage of justice is visible. Interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission is not warranted. The revision petition being ill conceived and bereft of merit is dismissed. The District Commission’s order No. 3 dated 03.11.2022 is confirmed. Consequently, the Interlocutory Application being No. IA/519/2023 is dismissed.
11. The registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the District Commission below within seven days from this day.
