HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT MANDAL, PRESIDENT
- This revisional application is directed against the order No. 4 dated 29.03.2023 passed by the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata – Unit IV, West Bengal (in short, ‘the District Commission’) in connection with consumer case No. CC/14/2023 thereby rejected the application filed by the revisionist / opposite party challenging the maintainability of the case.
- The complainants / respondents filed a complaint case against the revisionist praying for the following reliefs :-
“a) A sum of rupees 10,00000/- for harassment;
b) A sum of rupees 5,00000/- for damages;
c) A sum of rupees 5,00000/- for deficiency in service / unfair trade practice;
d) A sum of rupees 5,00000/- for litigation cost;
e) Any other order or orders direction or directions your Honour may deem fit and proper.”
3. The revisionist / opposite party entered appearance in this case and filed the Maintainability Application being No. 40/2023 before the Learned District Commission below. The Learned District Commission below after hearing the same was pleased to dispose of the said M.A. Application being No. MA/40/2023.
4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order passed by the Learned District Commission below, the revisionist has preferred this revisional application.
5. Learned Advocate appearing for the revisionist has urged that the Learned District Commission below has acted in exercise of jurisdiction illegally with material irregularity in rejecting the application being No. M.A./40/2023 on a wrong footing. He has further submitted that the Learned District Commission below ought to have exercised the jurisdiction so vested in it holding that the complainants / respondents admittedly got possession of the owners’ allocation in the month of April, 2018 and the complaint case has been filed in the year 2023. During this period the complainants / respondents were totally silent about their alleged claim and the complaint case is hopelessly barred by limitation. He has further urged that the other owners have not been made party as they are party to the development agreement. So, the complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary parties. So, the revisional application should be allowed and the impugned order should be set aside.
6. Having heard the Learned Advocate appearing for the revisionist and on careful perusal of the materials on record it appears to us that the maintainability application was rejected by the District Commission. It also appears to us that the revisionist / opposite party prayed for dismissal of the said complaint on the ground that the complainants filed the instant complaint without making the other owners as party to this proceeding and the said complaint cannot be adjudicated properly in absence of the said co-owners.
7. It also appears to us that the opposite party also prayed for dismissal of the complaint case as the complaint case was barred by limitation.
8. The Learned District Commission after hearing both sides has dismissed the M.A. Application. The observation of the Learned District Commission below are that in the petition of complaint the complainants / respondents nowhere stated that their portion out of owners’ allocation have already been given by the revisionist / opposite party who is the developer, that apart the complainants have claimed to be the owners of the scheduled property in respect of which the development agreement was made with the respondent / opposite party, alleged that the opposite party did not complete the construction of the building.
9. Further observations of the Learned District Commission below is that the instant complaint cannot be said to be barred by limitation. Thus, the Learned District Commission below has exercised the jurisdiction properly vested in it under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
10. Now, we are of the view that the said observations as made by the Learned District Commission below can be supported. Therefore, we find no irregularity in the impugned order passed by the Learned District Commission below. So, we are of the view that the revision petition has no merits at all. So, it is dismissed in limini without being admitted.
11. The Learned District Commission is directed to proceed with the complaint case and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order passed by this Commission.
12. Let a copy of this order be sent down to the Learned District Commission below at once.
13. Office to comply.
