HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT MANDAL, PRESIDENT
1. This revision petition is directed against the order No. 23 dated 05/08/2022 passed by the Learned Addl. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajarhat (New Town) ( in short ‘the Addl. District Commission’) in connection with complaint case No. CC/179/2019 thereby rejected the application filed by the Revisionist challenging the maintainability of the case. The complainant / respondent No. 1 filed a complaint case against the revisionists praying for the following reliefs :-
(i) The Opposite parties are jointly or severally be directed to complete the entire incomplete construction of the flat mentioned in the Second schedule as per agreement dated 05/07/2009 and declaration dated 27/02/2015.
(ii) The Opposite parties are jointly and severally be directed to handover the copy of sanctioned building plan in favour of the petitioners / complainant.
(iii) The Opposite parties are jointly and severally be directed to handover the completion certificate as well as possession certificate of the owners allocation in respect of the building in favour of the petitioner / complainant.
(iv) The Opposite parties are jointly or severally be directed to pay the following amount in the following heads :
- Entire due amount of rupees 1,76,649/-
- For mental agony, pain and anxiety Rs.1,00,000/-
- For unnecessary harassment and unfair trade practice Rs.1,00,000/-
(v) The Opposite parties are jointly or severally be directed to pay Rs.20,000/- as litigation cost.
(vi) Interim order restraining the opposite parties from transferring the developer’s allocation (Specifically mentioned in schedule “C”) in favour of any third party till disposal of the instant case.
(vii) Any other relief or reliefs which the petitioner / complainant entitled as per the law of equity and natural justice.
2. The revisionist / opposite party No. 3 entered appearance in this case and filed a maintainability application being No. MA/8/2020 before the Learned Addl. District Commission. Learned Addl. District Commission after hearing the same, was pleased to dispose of the said M.A. Application being No. MA/8/2020.
3. Being aggrieved, the revisionists have preferred this revisional application.
4. Learned Advocate appearing for the revisionists has urged that Learned Addl. District Commission has exercised its jurisdiction not vested in it under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in admitting and proceeding with a time barred complaint. He has further urged that Learned Addl. District Commission has refused to exercise its jurisdiction not vested in it under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in not testing whether the said complaint filed before it complies with the respective provision of limitation as envisaged under the Act, at the time of and before admitting the said complaint. He has further urged that the proceedings in the said complaint is bad and is liable to be set aside.
5. Having heard the Learned Advocate appearing for the revisionists and on careful perusal of the materials on record it appears to us that the maintainability application with regard to pecuniary jurisdiction was rejected by the Addl. District Commission.
6. It also appears to us that the revisionist No. 3 challenged the maintainability of the case on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction of the Learned Addl. District Commission by filing an M.A. Application being No. MA/8/2020. Learned Addl. District Commission after hearing the Learned Advocate of both sides has been pleased to dispose of the said M.A. Application being No. MA/8/2020.
7. The observations of the Learned Addl. District Commission on 11/07/2022 are that the complainant filed a report of the market value of the land situated at 91, Gopal Lal Tagore Road, Kolkata - 700 036 registered under ADSR, Cossipore with R.S. Plot No. 6022, R.S. Khatian No. 1198, mouza Baranagar Municipality, Baranagar, District North 24 Parganas, total area of 2 kottahs, 6 sq. ft., ‘Bastu’ land issued by the Inspector General of Register & Commissioner of Stamp Revenue, West Bengal wherefrom it appears that the valuation of the piece of land i.e. the property in question as on 05/07/2009 was Rs.6,02,499/-. The Learned Addl. District Commission has further observed that vide Order dated 03/06/2022 the complainant was provided an opportunity to file the valuation report for greater interest of justice and in compliance of the said order, the complainant / respondent No. 1 has filed the valuation report. As such, Learned Addl. District Commission has not found any irregularity in filing of the valuation report on 11/07/2022 by the complainant. Learned Addl. District Commission was of the opinion that the valuation report filed by the complainant was correct and as such it was accepted. Learned Addl. District Commission has further observed that the Addl. District Commission has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaint. As such, the application for challenging the maintainability of the case has not been succeeded and M.A. Application being No. MA/8/2020 was disposed of.
8. We are of the view that the said observations as made by the Learned Addl. District Commission below can be supported.
9. Thus, the Learned Addl. District Commission has exercised the jurisdiction properly vested in it under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
10. In the result, we find no irregularity in the impugned order passed by the Learned Addl. District Commission. Therefore, we are of the view that the revision petition has no merits at all. So, it is dismissed in limini with costs of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand) only to be paid by the revisionists in favour of the SCWF.
11. The revisionists are directed to make payment of such cost within 15 days from the date of issuance of this order. The revisionists are also directed to file the copy of money receipt before the Learned Addl. District Commission below.
12 The revisional application is thus disposed of accordingly.
13. Learned Addl. District Commission is directed to proceed with the complaint case on seeing the copy of the money receipt.
14. Learned Addl. District Commission is also directed to decide the same as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order passed by this Commission.
15. Let a copy of this order be sent down to the Learned Addl. District Commission at once.
