Order No.23

Today is fixed for passing order ascertaining the fate of the valuation report filed by the complainant. Heard both sides.

The complainant on 11.07.2022 filed report of market value of the land situated at 91, Gopal Lal Tagore Road, Calcutta-700036 registered under ADSR Cossipore with RS Plot No: 6022, RS Khatian No: 1198, Mouza-Baranagar, Municipality – Baranagore, District-North 24 Parganas, Total Area-2 Katha 6 Sq. foot Bastu land) issued by Inspector General of Registrar & Commissioner of Stamp Revenue, W.B., wherefrom it appears that valuation of the piece of land i.e. property in question as on 05.07.2009 is Rs. 6,02,499/-.

The OP no. 3 filed written objection stating, inter alia, the chronological events since filing of the instant complaint. The said OP mentioned further that the valuation report in respect of the property in question had not been filed in compliance of the order dated 26.12.2018 and 24.10.2019 passed by the Hon’ble SCDRC, W.B. Therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed.

It is evident from the report filed by the complainant that as on the date of filing of the instant complaint case the District Forum has got:- As per provision of Section 11 (1) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The District Forum (now Commission) has jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint as on date of filing (05.07.2009).

However, the objection filed by OP no. 3 it is stated that the said valuation report has not been filed in compliance with the order passed by the Hon’ble SCDRC dated 26.12.2018 and 24.10.2019.

On perusal of the record it appears that vide order dated 03.06.2022 the complainant was provided an opportunity to file the valuation report for the greater interest of justice. In compliance of the said order the complainant has filed the valuation report. Therefore, no irregularity of events is found with the event of filing of the valuation report on 11.07.2022 by the complainant.

In view of the discussion has made herein above, we are of opinion that the valuation report filed by the complainant/Ld. Advocate of the complainant is accepted.

However, the OP no. 3 has challenged maintainability of the case on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission by filing a MA which is registered as MA 8/2020. It is evident from the above discussion that this Commission has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the instant consumer complaint. Hence the said MA has not succeeded.

Thus, the MA being no. 8/2020 is disposed of.

28.10.2022 is fixed for filing evidence on affidavit by the complainant.