SAMIKSHA BHATTACHARYA,  MEMBER 

Today is fixed for passing order in respect of Revision Petition being No. RP/114/2023 filed by the revisionist/OP No.1.

It appears from the record that on the date of admission hearing, Ld. Advocate Mr. Koushik Karmakar appeared on behalf of respondents no. 2 & 3 by filing vakalatnama.But inadvertently it was typed in Order No.1 dated 11.09.2023 that “Ld. Advocate Mr. Koushik Karmamar appears on behalf of respondents no. 1 & 2 by filing vakalatnama”.Therefore, it should be corrected.The Order No. 01 dated 11.09.2023 should be read as : “Ld. Advocate Mr. Koushik Karmamar appears on behalf of respondents no. 2 & 3 by filing vakalatnama”. The Order No. 01 dated 11.09.2023 is modified accordingly.

The instant revision petition has been filed by the revisionist/OP No.1 questioning propriety of the order dated 30.06.2023 passed by the Ld. DCDRC, Kolkata-III (South) in Complaint Case No. CC/267/2022 pending before it.

Order No.09 dated 30.06.202 is reproduced under:

“Today is fixed for filing questionnaire by the complainant.Ld. advocate appearing for the complainant is present.Files the questionnaire.Copy served.Ld. Advocate appearing for the OP 1 is present.Ld. Advocate appearing for OP 2 & 3 are present.Hence, fix 31/8/2023 for filing reply by the OP.”

Ld. Advocate for the revisionist has stated that a complaint case being No. CC/267/2022 has been preferred by the complainant/respondent no.1 of the revision petition against the revisionist/OP No.1 in collusion with respondents no. 2 & 3/OPs no. 2 & 3 of the complaint case.  On 03.01.2023 the complaint case was fixed for filing questionnaire by the OPs against the evidence filed by the complainant, neither the OP No.2 nor the OP No.3 filed  their respective questionnaires and expressed their unwillingness to file the same.  On 28.04.2023 when the date was fixed for filing evidence by OPs, the OPs No. 2 & 3 refused to serve the copy of evidence to the OP No.1/Revisionist.  Then the OP No.1 has applied for certified copy of the respective of evidence of OP No.2 and OP No.3 and those were received on 28.04.2023.  When the OP No.2 has gone through the evidence of OPs No. 2 & 3, OP No.1 found several allegations against her without any documentary evidence.  Then the OP No.1 prepared her questionnaire against the evidence of OPs No. 2 & 3 and on 28.06.2023 OP No.1 has prayed for filing the questionnaires against the evidence on affidavit of OPs No. 2 & 3.  But such prayer was denied by the Ld. DCDRC.  Thereafter the date was fixed for filing questionnaire by the complainant on 30.06.2023.  Accordingly, the complainant filed their questionnaire on 30.06.2023 and the next date was fixed for filing reply by OP.

Being aggrieved by the order dated 30.06.2023, the OP No.1 filed the instant revision petition. In the order dated 30.06.2023, we find that the date was not fixed for  filing questionnaire by OP No.1.  The date 30.06.2023 was fixed for filing questionnaire by the complainant.

Upon hearing the Ld. Advocate for OP No.1, it appears that after  filing evidence on affidavit by all the OPs on 28.04.2023, the date was fixed for filing questionnaire by the complainant as per law. The grievance of OP No.1 is that after filing the evidence on affidavit by OPs No. 2 & 3 on 28.04.2023, the OP No.1 was not given any opportunity  to file questionnaire against the evidence of OPs No. 2 & 3.  Firstly, the OP No.1 namely, Mrs. Debjani Dutta (Paul)  ought to have been aggrieved against the Order No.08 dated 28.04.2023 when her prayer was rejected but this Revision Petition has been filed against the Order No.09 dated 30.06.2023.  Moreover, it is  pertinent to mention that the plea taken by OP No. 1 is that on 28.04.2023, the prayer of OP No. 1 to cross examine other OPs was  not considered. We think the prayer was not  entertained rightly  and as per law. Secondly, the Ld. Advocate for OP No.1 has submitted before us that he prays for fixing the date for filing questionnaire by OP No.1 against the evidence on affidavit filed by  other OPs but that opportunity was not given by the Ld. DCDRC.  This prayer was  made through oral submission, no petition was filed by the OP No.1 for such prayer before the Ld. DCDRC.  The Order dated 28.04.2023 does not reflect anything so the order dated 30.06.2023 does not reflect anything else which shows that any opportunity of OP No. 1 was curtailed by that impugned order for which the instant Revision Petition  has been filed by OP No. 1.

It is to  be noted that  as per Consumer Protection Act, the opportunity for filing questionnaire has been given to other side against the evidence on affidavit of one side.  The opportunity for filing questionnaire to the OPs is given against the evidence on affidavit filed by the complainant and vice versa. As per Consumer Protection Act there is no provision to give  the chance to each and every OP to file his/her questionnaire against the evidence of other OPs. The OPs are given chance to file questionnaire against the evidence on affidavit filed by complainant/complainants. On 03.01.2023 the OP No. 1 already filed her questionnaire against the evidence on affidavit filed by the complainant.  Therefore, after 28.04.2023 the date was fixed for filing questionnaire by the complainant against the evidence of OPs as per  provision of law. 

In view of above, we find that no illegality, impropriety or irregularity in the impugned order being No.09 dated 30.06.2023 passed by the Ld. DCDRC, Kolkata III (South) in CC/267/2022.

Therefore, the Revision Petition  is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly, the Revision Petition  being No.  RP/114/2021 filed by OP No.1 is dismissed in limini, being not admitted.

The Revision Petition  is, thus, disposed of  accordingly.