This appeal is directed against the order dated 10/1/02018 delivered by the Ld. DCDRF, Siliguri in connection with consumer case no. 93/S/2018. The fact of the case in nutshell is that the appellant complainant miss Pritee Sinchury registered a consumer complaint before the Ld. Forum under Section 12 of CP Act, 1986 to the score that her mother had intended to purchase a residential flat at Siliguri contacted with one Hari Sharma, OP no. 3 in the year 2016 for availability of any residential flat who told her that he had an agreement with Op no. 2 reputed builder to construction a residential apartment in a land belonging to one Op no. 4. Then after contact with OP No. 2 the complainant had entered into a registered agreement with OP no. 1 who happened to be the wife of OP no.2. to purchase a three BHK flat at a consideration price of rupees 17 lakh and advance one Lakh rupee was paid by the complainant, by way of cheque and handed over to the OP no. 3 Hari Sharma. OP no. 2 Manish Lal on 25/5/2016 and said agreement was notarised on 30/8/2016. Thereafter the complainant by part payment handed over rupees 6,10,000 as part payment. And the construction work was started since January, 2017 and thereafter some dispute arose between the land owners, brokers and builders and as such the construction work was totally stopped and the complainant being bona fide purchaser could not get possession of the flat till now and though it was agreed that the possession would be delivered within February, 2018. So, there was deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties and for that reason, the complainant registered a consumer complaint. The complainant after registering the consumer compliant did not purse her case due to some reasons and the Ld. Forum at last dismissed the consumer complaint for non-prosecution. Being aggrieved with the order of Ld. Forum this appeal follows on the ground that the order of Ld. Forum is contrary to law and liable to be set aside. The appeal was registered before this Commission and it was admitted on merit and notice of appeal was served upon the all four respondents. In spite of receiving notice respondent no. 3 and 4 did not turn up to contest the appeal. Respondent no. 1 and 2 that is the builders and promoter has contested the appeal through Ld. Advocate Mr. Sarkar and Mr. Bhowmik. On behalf of the appellant Mr. J Ganguly has moved the appeal. The appeal was heard in presence of Ld. Advocate of both sides.

Decision with reason,

Having heard the Ld. Counsels of contesting parties it appears to us that the Ld. Forum dismissed the consumer complaint on admission stage on the ground that the complainant was not vigil enough to proceed with the case and for that reason, the complaint was dismissed for non-prosecution. 

Now the question is wether the order Ld. Forum suffers from any irregularity and invites the interference of this Commission. According to provision of sub-Section 3 of section 12 of CP Act, on received of a complaint made under Sub-section (1) the Forum may by order allow the complaint to be proceeded with or rejected.

Provided that a compliant shall not be rejected under this section unless an opportunity of being heard has been given to the complainant.

Provided further that the admissibility of the complaint shall ordinarily be decided within 21 days from the date on which the complaint was registered. Here in this particular case, the actual purchaser was the mother of the complainant. The complainant in an unmarried daughter resided at hilly region of Darjeeling at Mirik while her mother works as a domestic help at Israel. So, they could not pursue their consumer complaint in due time and the fate of compliant was rejected being un-heard.

The provision of Section 12 speaks that ordinarily the complaint should be admitted within 21 days since the date of registration. But in all such cases it not the hard and fast law either to admit it within 21 days or reject it after 21 days if the complainant does not pursue the complaint for admission in due time.

Considering the context and present facts and circumstances, this Commission thinks that the sufficient opportunity should have to be provided to the complainant so that, she can pursue her consumer complaint for admission. She did not get ample opportunity to go with the consumer complaint and as a result she could not avail the right and previlege provided to her by dint of Cp Act, 1986.

So, in our view, the consumer complaint should be adjudicated according to the provision of section 13 of CP Act, 1986. Here in this case, the OP No. 1 and 2 has contested the appeal and they are aware about the existence of the consumer complaint case. On the other hand, Op no. 3 and 4 did not contest the appeal and perhaps they have no opportunity to gather knowledge about the existence of consumer complaint. So, the considered view of this Commission, is that the consumer complaint should be reopened for its proper redressal. As such the appeal should be allowed.

Hence, it is,

Ordered,

That the appeal be and the same is hereby allowed on contest against respondent no. 1 and 2 and ex-parte against respondent 3 and 4. The order of Ld. DCDRF, Siliguri dated 10/10/2018 in refence to cc no. 93/s/2018 stands vacated. The consumer complaint is hereby admitted on merit by this Forum. The OP no. 1 and 2 of that consumer complaint case are directed to file their Witten version within 45 days from this day after collecting copies of the notice of Consumer complaint form the Ld. Forum by this time and the case is remanded bank to the Ld. Forum with a request to issue notice of consumer complaint upon op no. 3 an 4 and adjudicate the instant consumer dispute within 3 months by giving sufficient opportunities of all parties to place their cases before the Ld. Forum in due time.

Let a copy of this order be communicated to the Ld. DCDRF, Siliguri and also to be supplied to concern parties free of cost.