HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT MANDAL, PRESIDENT
- This revision petition is at the instance of revisionist / petitioner and is directed against the order No. 38 dated 08/04/2024 passed by the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Howrah ( in short, ‘the District Commission’) in connection with consumer case No. CC/92/2015 whereby the Learned District Commission was pleased to fix the date of the case for ex parte hearing and for filing evidence on affidavit by the complainant. The revisionist being the complainant filed a petition of complaint before the Learned District Commission being No. CC/92/2015 praying for the following reliefs :-
“i) An order directing the opposite party No. 1 to complete the flat in schedule ‘B’ hereunder.
ii) An order directing the opposite party No. 1 to deliver possession of the flat in schedule ‘B’ to the complainant immediately.
iii) An order directing the opposite parties jointly and severally to execute and register the Deed of Sale in respect of the property in schedule ‘B’ hereunder within a specified time on receipt of the balance consideration from the complainant on completion of the flat and on delivery of possession.
iv) For compensation for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- for mental pain and agony of the complainant.
v) An Award against the opposite parties jointly and severally for refund of the earnest money of Rs.3,50,000/- (Rupees three lacs fifty thousand only) immediately to the complainant with interest, cost and damages.
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.”
- Notice was issued upon the opposite party No. 2. The said notice was returned back to the Commission with postal remark ‘unclaimed’. As such, the Learned District Commission was pleased to fix the date of the case for ex parte hearing and for filing evidence on affidavit by the complainant 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 it appears to me that on 08/04/2024, the complainant filed affidavit of service wherein it transpired that the notice was sent to the opposite party No. 2 and the said notice has been returned with postal remark ‘unclaimed’. I think that the ‘unclaimed’ is a good service. It is also found that in spite of having knowledge of service of notice, the opposite party No. 2 has not appeared before the Learned District Commission. In such a situation, the Learned District Commission rightly fixed the date on 22/05/2024 for ex parte hearing and for filing evidence on affidavit by the complainant. Moreover, I find that the conduct of the revisionist / petitioner since the filing of the case is not so good. This apart, I find that the present case was filed in the year 2005. I find that the main objectives of the Consumer Protection Act are to protect the rights of the consumer and to safeguard their interest through a proper grievance redressal mechanism. If, the present revisional application is admitted, then, it will be injustice on the part of the complainant.
- After due consideration to the submission made by the Learned Advocate appearing for the revisionist and on scrutiny of the materials available on record I do not find any jurisdictional error or material irregularity in passing the order impugned. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order impugned. For the reasons aforesaid, the impugned order is hereby affirmed.
- The revisional application is thus disposed of accordingly.
- The Registry of this Commission is directed to send a copy of the order to the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Howrah for information at once.
