HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT MANDAL, PRESIDENT
- This revision petition is at the instance of the revisionist and is directed against the order No. 3 dated 28/03/2024 passed by the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Howrah ( in short, the ‘District Commission’) in connection with R.A. Case No. RA/18/2023 whereby the Learned District Commission was pleased to reject the Review application being No. RA/18/2023.
- The respondent Nos. 1 & 2 being the complainants filed a petition of complaint before the Learned District Commission being No. CC/9/2023 praying for the following reliefs :-
“i) An award directing the opposite parties jointly and severally to immediately deliver possession of the entire constructed area to the complainants in respect of the ‘B’ schedule property with document of possession.
ii) An order directing the opposite parties No. 1 to 4 jointly and severally to complete the flat and to deliver possession of the newly constructed flat, measuring about 750 Sq. ft. on the first floor as described in schedule ‘B’ to the complaint immediately and to execute and register the Deed of Sale in respect of the property in schedule ‘B’ hereunder within a specified time in favour of the complainants.
iii) An award directing the opposite parties either to deliver the flat in schedule ‘B’ or to refund the total consideration money of Rs.25,50,000/- (Rupees twenty five lacs fifty thousand) received from the complainants’ predecessor as total consideration money against delivery of possession of a flat in schedule ‘B’ to the complainants immediately with interest within a specified time.
iv) For an award for compensation for a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- to be payable to the complainants by the opposite parties for causing mental pain and agony.
v) For an award of refund of the excess money of Rs.50,000/- received by the opposite party No.1/developer in excess of the consideration money fixed for the said ‘B’ schedule property on execution and registration of the said property.
vi) For payment of interest on decretal dues till recovery of the same according to law.
vii) For all cost of the proceeding.
viii) Any other relief/reliefs to which the Complainant may be found entitled to both in law and in equity.”
- Notices were duly issued upon the opposite parties and it was duly served upon the opposite parties on 10/02/2023 and 15/02/2023. As the opposite parties were absent without any steps and did not file the written version within the statutory period, as such, the case was fixed for ex parte hearing on 26/09/2023 by the order dated 17/05/2023. An application for review of the said order No. 5 dated 17/05/2023 was filed by the revisionist along with an application for condonation of delay and the said review application and the application for condonation of delay were rejected by the Learned District Commission by the order impugned.
- Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order, the revisionist / petitioner has preferred this revisional application.
- Having heard the Learned Advocate appearing for the parties and on perusal of the record and the impugned order it appears to me that the opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 being the complainants filed an application under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 which was registered as complaint case No. 9 of 2023. The case filed by the complainants was admitted and after admission, notices upon the opposite party Nos. 3 to 5 were duly issued. Notices were duly served upon the opposite parties on 10/02/2023 and 15/02/2023. Though the notices were duly served upon the opposite party Nos. 3 to 5, the opposite parties did not turn up and were absent and did not file the written version within the statutory period of time. As such, the Learned District Commission was pleased to fix the date of ex parte hearing.
- Upon careful perusal of the order No. 5 dated 17.05.2023, I do not find any error apparent on the face of the record which calls for review of the order No. 5 dated 17/05/2023. Moreover, I find that in the application for condonation of delay, the opposite parties have nowhere stated about the date of knowledge when they came to know about the order No. 5 dated 17/05/2023. Moreover, I find that the ground for condonation of delay is not sufficient and the petitioners / opposite parties have not explained day to day delay in the condonation application before the Learned District Commission.
- Under these facts and circumstances, I hold that the Learned District Commission has rightly rejected the review application. Therefore, I find that there is no incorrectness, illegality or impropriety in the impugned order passed by the Learned District Commission.
- In view of the matter, I hold that the order of the Learned District Commission below should not be disturbed. Therefore, there is nothing to interfere with the impugned order. So, the revision petition is without any merit. It is, therefore, dismissed.
- Considering the facts and circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs. The Learned District Commission below is directed to dispose of the case as early as possible without granting any unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties.
- Let a copy of this order be sent down to the Learned District Commission below at once.
- Office to comply.
