This revision is preferred against the order No. 36 dated 08.07.2019 in connection with CC Case No. 78 of 2015 delivered by Ld. D.C.D.R.F, Malda. The revisional case in a nutshell is that one A. Chatterjee and others has filed a Consumer Complaint before the Ld. D.C.D.R.F, Malda Bearing No. CC 78 of 2015 under Section 12 of C.P. Act, 1986 praying for installation or construction of lift, fire service, generator roof tiles etc. In their Jogmaya Apartment at English Bazar, Malda where the revisionist after getting notice of Consumer Complaint filed the W.V and also filed a petition dated 04.04.2018 for passing an order to have a local inspection over the subject matter as O.P. No. 2 and 4. The further case of the revisionist is that during the pendency of the Consumer Complaint one of the complainant A. Chatterjee passed away on 20.01.2019 and the heirs of A. Chatterjee filed a petition by substitution on 08.07.2019 that is after a long gap between the date of demise of A. Chatterjee and the date of substitution petition which was not permitted as per provisions of order 1 Rule 10(2) of C.P. code. Both the two petitions was pending before the Ld. Forum which was placed for hearing on 08.07.2019 on that day Ld. Forum after hearing both sides has delivered the impugned judgment by which the petition of the revisionists who happened to be the O.P. No. 2 and 4 dated 04.04.2018 was rejected and the petition of the heirs of deceased A. Chatterjee dated 08.07.2019 was allowed. The order of the Ld. Forum dated 08.07.2019 is hereby challenged here in the instant revision on the ground that this order was totally bad in law and the provision of Section 13(7) of C.P. Act, was completely ignored by the Ld. Forum. The revision was admitted in due course and the notice was sent to the Opposite Parties of revision. The Opposite Party No. 1 to 4 has contested the revision through the Ld. Advocate Mr. S. Chakraborty who has contested the revision by filing the W.N.A. The revision was heard in presence of Ld. Advocate of both sides Ld. Advocate D. Banerjee and Others has conducted the hearing on behalf of the revisionists and Ld. Advocate Mr. S. Chakraborty canvassed the arguments on behalf of the Opposite Parties of the revision.

Decision with Reasons

At the time of argument Ld. Advocate points out the provisions of Section 13(7) of C.P. Code. He mentions that the deceased/complainant. Chatterjee has passed away on 20.1.2019 while the substitution petition was registered on 08.07.2019 that is more than six months was elapsed since the death of the deceased. He pointed out the provisions of Clause (7) of Sub Section 1 of Section 13 of C.P. Act, 1986 where it is embodied that in the event of death of complainant who is  a Consumer  or of the Opposite Party against whom the complaint has been filed the provisions of order (xxii) of the first schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 shall apply subject to the modification that every reference therein to the plaintiff and the defendant shall have construed  as reference to a complainant or the Opposite Party as the case may be. He further argued that in this case the Opposite Parties of this revision had the opportunity to file a petition for substitution within 90 days from the date of death but they had come to a substitute after 90 days and by this time automatically by virtue of provisions of order 22 C.P. code the case was abated and mere substitution was not enough and permissible until the abetment was sought for set aside. He further argued that the main dispute in reference to the instant Consumer Complaint was some subject matters like lift, generator, electrification, installation of lift, fire service etc., and the revisionist in categorically in their W.V stated that all such facility was provided but suppressing the said fact the false Consumer Complaint was registered and to prove this the revisionist filed the petition dated 04.04.2018 which was not properly adjudicated and order or rejection was bad in law. During the course, of argument Ld. Advocate of the Opposite Party of the revision countered this argument by saying some points that Consumer Protection Act, is flexible one having the object to sort out the Consumer dispute in quick response and there was no necessity to abide all the rules and regulations and orders of C.P. Code to be applied upon in the process of adjudication. He further argued that Consumer Protection Act, 1986 particularly in Section 13(4) clearly indicates where in certain aspects the Consumer Forum is vested with powers of a Civil Court in a limited nature. He further argued that the case is pending since 2015 Ld. Forum perhaps in order to, achieve a quick disposal of this case did not give much weight to the provisions of order 1 Rule 10(2) of C.P. Code in a strict manner. In reference to his arguments Ld. Advocate has referred some judicial decisions of  Hon’ble higher Forums. After going through the content of the revision petition and after hearing the valuable argument raised before this Commission by the Ld. Counsel of both sides this Commission has found that in order to adjudicate the dispute in a proper manner Ld. Forum ought to have considered the practicality of the dispute, and rejection of local inspection Commission Petition was not justified one. On the other hand, the Commission finds that one Consumer during the pendency of the case was passed away and his legal heirs has come to step into the shoe of the predecessor and mere delay of filing the substitution petition was ignored by the Ld. Forum which does not appear to be miscarriage of justice. So, the revisional application petition have some merit also have some demerit. Regarding order of substitution the revisionists has no merit in their case on the other hand regarding the order of rejection of inspection Commission Petition has got some merits to agitate here.

Hence it is ordered

That the instant revisional application is partly allowed on contest without imposing any cost. The order No. 36 dated 08.07.2019 delivered by the Ld. D.C.D.R.F, Malda in CC No. 78 of 2015 is hereby modified in revision to the affect that the local inspection petition filed by O.P. No. 2 and 4 of the Consumer Complaint case dated 04.04.2018 stands allowed and the further order of Ld. Forum in reference to the petition of substitution dated 08.07.2019 stand confirmed. Ld. Forum is requested to appoint an inspection Commissioner as per provisions of law to hold the local inspection Commission as sought for by the O.P. No. 2 and 4 in the instant Consumer Complaint case, and to proceed with the case as per provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and dispose of the same as soon as practicable.

Let, the order be handed over free of cost to the parties  and also, to be communicated  to the Ld. D.C.D.R.F, Malda.