HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT MANDAL, PRESIDENT

1. This revisional application is at the instance of the revision petitioner and is directed against the order dated 05/02/2020 passed by the Learned District Consumer Forum at Barasat in connection with Misc. case No. MA/269/2019 arising out of the complaint case No. CC/520/2016 whereby an application being No. MA/269/2019 filed by the revision petitioner was rejected.

2. Heard the Learned Advocate appearing for the revision petitioner at length and in full and also perused the materials on record. The respondent as complainant filed one complaint case before the Learned District Forum against the revision petitioner with the allegation of the deficiency in service and accordingly claimed compensation.

3. The revision petitioner appeared in the said complaint case and contested the case by filing written version. After hearing both sides Learned District Forum was pleased to dismiss the complaint on contest on 15.03.2018. Against the order of dismissal passed by the Learned District Forum on 15.03.2018 the respondent / complainant preferred an appeal being No. A/349/2018 before this Commission.

4. After hearing the said appeal this Commission was pleased to remand back the said case for fresh decision of the case after giving the complainant an opportunity to establish his case by way of holding investigation of the flat by an Engineer Commissioner and to dispose of the complaint case according to law but preferably within a period of six months from the date of the order.

5. After remand during the pendency of the complaint case the revision petitioner filed an application being No. MA/269/2019 challenging the maintainability of the complaint case. The said application for maintainability of the complaint case was dismissed by the Learned District Forum by the impugned order.

6. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order, the present revision petitioner has filed this revisional application.

7. It is submitted by the Learned Advocate appearing for the revision petitioner that the impugned order is misconceived, erroneous and contrary to law. He has further submitted that the District Forum has failed to exercise its jurisdiction vested in it by law and has acted with any material irregularity and / or illegality. He has further submitted that the Learned District Forum has passed the order without proper application of judicial mind. He has further submitted that the complaint case is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Learned Lawyer appearing for the revision petitioner has prayed for setting aside the impugned order and dismissal of the complaint case. On the other hand, Learned Lawyer appearing for the respondent / complainant has urged that  the complaint case is quite maintainable, the revisional application is not maintainable in law and is liable to be dismissed.

8. Having heard the Learned Advocate appearing for both the parties and on perusal of the record it appears to us that against the order of dismissal of the complaint case, the respondent / complainant preferred appeal being No. A/349/2018 before this Commission. This Commission was pleased to remand back this case for fresh decision and against the order of this Commission, the revision petitioner did not prefer any appeal before the Hon’ble National Commission.

9. It appears further to us that this Commission allowed the appeal filed by the respondent / complainant and sent back the case on remand for fresh decision of the case after giving the complainant an opportunity to establish his case by way of holding investigation of the flat by an Engineer Commissioner and to dispose of the complaint case according to law but preferably within a period of six months from the date of the order. We think that in view of the above order passed by this Commission it would not be just and proper to allow the M.A. Application being No. 269/2019 filed by the revision petitioner. It would be just to continue the original complaint case being No. CC/520/2016 till reaching of its finality. Therefore, we may hold that the Learned District Forum has rightly dismissed the M.A. Application being No. 269/2019.

10. On perusal of the said order under challenge it appears to us that there is no incorrectness, illegality or impropriety in the impugned order passed by the Learned District Forum.

11. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the order of the Learned District Forum below should not be disturbed. Therefore, 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.

13. The Learned District Forum below is directed to dispose of the case as early as possible without granting any unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties.

14. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Learned District Forum at once.

15. Office to comply.