HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT MANDAL, PRESIDENT
- The present revision petition has been filed under section 47(i) (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (in short, ‘the Act’) by the revisionists / petitioners challenging the impugned order dated 06.02.2024 passed by the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Barasat, North 24 Parganas in connection with consumer case No. CC/235/2021 whereby the Learned District Commission rejected the prayer for non accepting the report submitted by the Learned Engineer Commissioner filed by the revisionists / opposite parties.
- I have heard the Learned Advocate appearing for the revisionists / petitioners and also carefully perused the order dated 06.02.2024 passed by the Learned District Commission, North 24 Parganas at Barasat, the grounds taken in the memo of revision and documents filed along with it.
- The Learned Advocate appearing for the revisionists / petitioners has submitted that the order dated 06.02.2024 passed by the Learned District Commission, North 24 Parganas at Barasat is not a reasonable order and thereby bad in law.
- He has further submitted that the report submitted by the Learned Engineer Commissioner is very confusing and non conclusive.
- He has further submitted that the impugned order is bad in law. So, the revisional application should be allowed and the impugned order should be set aside.
- Having heard the Learned Advocate appearing for the revisionists / petitioners and on careful perusal of the memo of revision and its Annexures, I find that the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 filed a complaint case praying for the following reliefs :-
“a) to admit the complaint/petitionand after due notice fix an early date of hearing;
b) to call for the records relating to the instance case;
c) direction upon the opposite parties to pay compensation to the complainants to the tune of Rs.20 lakh for delivery of possession of a Flat constructed with sub-standard material and under the supervision of negligent and irresponsible promoters being the opposite parties herein;
d) direction upon the Opposite Parties to pay the complainants the compensation to the tune of Rs. 5 lakh for resorting to unfair trade practice;
e) direction upon the opposite parties to pay compensation to the complainants the sum of Rs.2 lakh for the mental agony that is being suffered by the complainants till date;
f) direction upon the opposite parties to pay compensation to the complainants to the tune of Rs. 1 lakh towards legal expenses and other expenses;
g) to pass such other or further order or orders as Your Honour may deem fit and proper for the ends of justice.”
- The revisionists / petitioners / opposite parties entered appearance in this case and are contesting the case by filing written version denying the entire allegations. During the pendency of the case complainants filed one petition praying for appointment of an Engineer Commissioner which was registered as M.A. Case No. M.A./44/2023 against the said petition. The said M.A. Case was allowed on contest and the Learned District Commission below appointed one Mr. S. Chattopadhyay as Engineer Commissioner to hold the commission work in the disputed flat. Learned Engineer Commissioner Mr. S. Chattopadhyay subsequently inspected the case flat and after inspection submitted his report on 18.07.2023. Against the said report the revisionists / petitioners filed an application being No. M.A./48/2024 praying for refusal of the said report. The Learned District Commission below rejected the said application filed by the revisionists / petitioners by the order impugned.
- Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order the revisionists / petitioners has preferred this application.
- Having heard the Learned Advocate appearing for the parties and on perusal of the record and documents I find that the Learned Engineer Commissioner tried his level best for proper investigation as per the points given to him for furnishing the report. I also find that no proper reason to refuse the said report of the Learned Engineer Commissioner has been assigned by the revisionists / petitioners. Therefore, I hold that the Learned District Commission below has rightly rejected the M.A. Application being No. M.A./48/2024 filed by the revisionists / petitioners.
10. Under this facts and circumstances, I am of the view that there is no incorrectness, illegality or impropriety in the impugned order passed by the Learned District Commission.
11. In view of the above, I hold that the order of the Learned District Commission below should not be disturbed. There is nothing to interfere with the impugned order. So, the revisional application is without any merit. It is, therefore, dismissed.
12. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs. The Learned District Commission is directed to dispose of the case as early as possible without granting any adjournments to either of the parties.
