SAMIKSHA  BHATTACHARYA, MEMBER 

The instant Revision Petition has been directed by the Revisionist/OP No. 2  against the  Order No. 1  dated 31.12.2019 in Complaint Case No. CC/196/2019 passed by Ld. Additional Consumer  Disputes Resdressal Commission, Rajarhat (New Town) hereinafter referred to as Ld. DCDRC.

The Ld. Counsel for the Revisionist has submitted that  OP No. 2 has no grievance  against the first portion of the order dated 31.12.2019 whereby  the petition of complaint  was admitted and accordingly date was fixed for S/R and appearance. OP No. 2 has  filed the instant Revision against the second portion of the order which is reproduced as under:    

 “It is pertinent to mention that the complainant has filed this complaint alleging that the questioned product, purchased, suffers from some defects. For this reason the complainant has produced the purchased container of the  said along with product in open condition before this Ld. Forum. The competent  Authority  of this Ld. Forum is hereby directed to keep and maintain the said product in a serious manner.

As the allegation has been made regarding defect in the goods,  the same cannot be determined without proper analysis or test of the goods. The complainant is  directed to supply the name of the Test House where the alleged goods can be sent for proper analysis or test.”

Ld. Counsel the revisionist has submitted that the Ld. DCDRC passed the impugned order without jurisdiction in considering the question of alleged defects of  goods  at the stage of admission of the complaint for which it is not  empowered to do under the Act.  Ld.  DCDRC  would only assume jurisdiction to send the goods for testing in the event the  complainant  has specifically alleged defects in  goods which defect cannot be determined without  proper analysis or test of goods, none of which is satisfied in the facts of the instant case.   No defect has been alleged by the complainant in any manner.

Therefore, the Ld. DCDRC passed the order arbitrarily, unreasonably, perversely and without the authority or competency in law and without jurisdiction. The Ld. DCDRC has not come to a reasoned finding that the alleged  defects in the goods is of such a nature for which the analysis or test is necessary. The Ld. DCDRC would not have at all  ordered testing of goods without being an allegation of defect in the said complaint. Therefore,  the impugned order is erroneous on the face of the record and the impugned order  is in complete  violation of the procedure to be followed. The Ld. DCDRC has violated the principle of natural justice in as much as the finding of testing was done before providing an opportunity to the applicant to contest the same  and therefore passed ex parte  order which was not in accordance with applicable laws. Since there is material irregularity in exercise of the power vested  with the Ld. DCDRC by filing the instant Revision Petition Revisionist  has prayed for setting aside the order No. 1 dated 31.12.2019 passed in CC/196/2019 to the extent that such order has recorded the fact of defect in the said goods and has noted the requirement for test and analysis thereof and to the extent of asking the complainant to suggest  the names of test house.

Ld. Counsel for the respondent No. 1/complainant has submitted that  there is no impropriety and irregularity in the impugned order and therefore, the order dated 31.12.2019 should be affirmed.

Upon hearing the parties and on perusal of materials on record, particularly, the order No. 1 dated 31.12.2019 passed by Ld. DCDRC in CC/196/2019 it appears to us that the findings of the  Ld. DCDRC is that the complainant has alleged that the purchased  product suffers from some defects. Since the complainant has produced the purchased container along with the product in open condition before the Ld. District Commission, the Ld. DCDRC has only ordered to keep and maintain the said product in a serious manner. The Ld. DCDRC has also observed that the allegation cannot be determined without proper analysis of test and accordingly, it has ordered the complainant to supply the name of the test house  where the alleged goods  can be sent  for proper analysis  or test. We find that Ld. DCDRC has not  passed  any order to the extent that the  alleged product would be sent to the test house for determining the defect as alleged by the complainant.  The opportunity to file objection before sending the alleged goods to any test house is kept open before the Ld. DCDRC. Though the complainant has not filed any petition to send the alleged goods to any test house  for proper  analysis the Ld. DCDRC has kept the container with the alleged product in open condition for  further adjudication of the  matter in dispute.   Since the Ld. DCDRC has not opined any observation that to what extent the analysis would be done therefore, there is every opportunity to the revisionist/OP No. 2 to file the objection before sending the product to the test house, if any.

Therefore, we  find no infirmity or irregularity and impropriety in the impugned order passed by the Ld. DCDRC and therefore, the impugned order cannot be modified to any extent.

In  view of above discussion, the Revision Petition being No. RP/33/2020 be and the same is rejected on contest.

Fix  04.10.2023 for appearance of the parties  before the Ld. DCDRC for receiving further direction.

The interim order already passed by this Commission stands vacated.

The Revision Petition is disposed of, accordingly.

Let a copy of the order be sent to the Ld.  Additional Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajarhat, (New Town).