DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESAL COMMISSION
NORTH 24 Pgs., BARASAT.
C.C. No./356/2023
P R E S E N T :- Sri Daman Prosad Biswas………President.
:- Sri. Abhijit Basu………………. Member.
Order No.08
Dated. 05.09.2024
Today is fixed for hearing the M.A. case no. 08/2024 and M.A. case no. 94/2024 and 06/2024.
Ld. Advocate for the Complainant is present.
Ld. Advocate for the O.P No. 9 is present. Ld. Advocate for the O.P No. 10 is present.
M.A. case no. 94/2024 is taken up for hearing.
Heard both sides.
Perused the petition.
O.P No. 9 by filing the said petition praying for rejection of the instant case on the ground of non disclosure of cause of action.
During hearing he referred the para no. 23 of petition of complaint.
On perusal of the same we find that it has stated therein “that the cause of action of this complaint arose on ___________ and same is still continuing.” Accordingly we find that date of cause of action have not mentioned in the said place. Nowhere in the petition of complaint it has clearly mentioned when the cause of action of this case has arisen. But we find from the contents of the petition of complaint that actually dispute started from the date of execution of agreement for sale dated 06/05/2023. So it can be presumed that cause of action of this case has started from the date of execution of agreement for sale i.e. on 06/05/2023.
It is fact that due to accidental or due to absent mind of the concerned person date of cause of action in the aforesaid vacant place not yet mentioned and that cannot be the sufficient and only ground for rejection of petition of complaint.
In view of above, we are of the firmed view that due to aforesaid mistake present case should not be dismissed.
Hence, the petition dated 02/04/2024 filed by O.P No. 9 is dismissed but without any order as to costs.
M.A. case no. 94/2024 is thus disposed of.
Contd. To Page No. 2 . . . ./
: : 2 : :
C.C. No./356/2023
M.A. case no. 06/2024 is taken up for hearing.
Heard both sides.
Perused the petition.
O.P No. 9 by filing this petition under order 7 rule 11 praying for rejection of the instant case on the ground that cause of action has not disclosed.
During hearing he referred the para no. 23 of petition of complaint.
On perusal of the same we find that it has stated therein “that the cause of action of this complaint arose on ___________ and same is still continuing.” Accordingly we find that date of cause of action have not mentioned in the said place. Nowhere in the petition of complaint it has clearly mentioned when the cause of action of this case has arisen. But we find from the contents of the petition of complaint that actually dispute started from the date of execution of agreement for sale dated 06/05/2023. So it can be presumed that cause of action of this case has started from the date of execution of agreement for sale i.e. on 06/05/2023.
It is fact that due to accidental or due to absent mind of the concerned person date of cause of action in the aforesaid vacant place not yet mentioned and that cannot be the sufficient and only ground for rejection of petition of complaint.
In view of above, we are of the firmed view that due to aforesaid mistake present case should not be dismissed.
Hence, the petition dated 05/01/2024 filed by O.P No. 9 is dismissed but without any order as to costs.
M.A. case no. 06/2024 is thus disposed of.
M.A. case no. 08/2024 is taken up for hearing.
Heard both sides.
Perused the petition.
O.P No. 10 by filing this petition U/s 38(3B) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 prayed for dismissed the case against O.P No. 10.
During hearing Ld. Advocate for the O.P No. 10 submits that he is an financial institution has only disburse the mortgage loan towards the petitioner after adhering and abiding the due process of law.
Contd. To Page No. 3 . . . ./
: : 3 : :
C.C. No./356/2023
On perusal of record we find that Complainant included him as party of this case because he was involved in the transaction under dispute. As per Ld. Advocate for the Complainant case should be disposed of in presence of O.P No. 10.
On perusal of record we find that O.P No. 10 took vital role relating to banking transaction which has been challenged in this case.
In view of above, we are of the firmed view that presence of O.P No. 10 is highly essential at the time of final hearing of this case to avoid any sort of complications in future.
Hence, the petition dated 05/01/2024 filed by O.P No. 10 is dismissed but without any order as to costs.
M.A. case no. 08/2024 is thus disposed of.
To 04/10/2024 for further order.
Member President
