S. Majumder, Member

This Revision Petition has been directed by the Petitioner against the order passed by the District Forum, Howrah, on 12.08.2008 wherein the Ld. forum below has allowed the petition filed by the Complainant and appointed Mr. Swapan Paul, LVS to hold the local inspection of the flat in question for assessing the extent and cause of damage of inner walls of the said flat and the floor of the privy. The said LVS was directed to assess the probable cost for repairing of the damage, if so found and to prepare a field note for the local inspection and submit the report with the said field note. The LVS was directed to issue notice to the parties through their respective counsel before inspection and to file the inspection report within a month from the date of the order.

Being aggrieved by the above-mentioned order the OP-Petitioner has filed the present Revision Petition before this Commission contending that Mr. Swapan Paul is not a valuer commissioner and is not competent to assess the cost of repairing of the purported damage and only a Civil Engineer having requisite knowledge of valuation is competent to assess the damage and cost of repairing the same. The Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the Forum below was not justified in appointing the named person of the Complainant as Commissioner as the report in such case will never be impartial and neutral. It has been further argued by the Petitioner that theForum below has acted illegally in citing the provision of the Section 13 (4)(v) of the C.P. Act, 1986 along with the citation of AIR 1998 SC, 1801, which are not applicable in the instant case. According to the Petitioner the order passed by the Forum below being illegal and erroneous is liable to be set aside.

On careful consideration of the record it is seen by us that the Ld. Forum has passed the order based on a particular section of the C.P. Act and one judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It has been stated in the Section 13 (4) (v) that ‘at the time of trying a suit the District Forum shall have the power to issue of any commission for the examination of any witness.’ There is no provision of appointing a local inspector in the said Sub- Section of the Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The judgment, which has been mentioned by the Forum below in its order, we have also perused the same. The said judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case between M/s. Spring Meadows Hospital and Another Vs. Harjol Ahluwalia, reported in AIR 1998 SC 1801, where Their Lordships have held that in case of child patient treated by the doctor and the Hospital, the parents of the said child would be a consumer. In the case in hand there is no similarity with the above-mentioned medical case. Therefore we are not at one with the Forum below that the said judgment is not applicable in the present case. Moreover in case of deficiency in service on behalf of the service provider the Forum below from the list of the Hon’ble High Court can appoint Engineer Commissioner.

Going by the foregoing discussion we are of the opinion that the Revision Petition be allowed on contest without any cost and the order passed by the Forum below be set aside. With the above observation the Revision Complainant be disposed of accordingly. The office is directed to send down the copy of the order to the Forum below and issue the same upon the recorded Advocates free of cost forthwith.