HON’BLE MR. SUDEB MITRA, PRESIDING MEMBER 

Order No. : 10

Date : 06.11.2024

The available materials on record so culled out from the contents of Revision Petition No. 02/2024, filed on 08.01.2024 before this Commission, by the revisionist, Bengal Auto, represented by it’s proprietor Abhishek Khan/i.e. OP 2 of the complaint case No. CC/125/2023 reveal that the respondent of the instant Revision Petition/complainant of CC/125/2023 Sujal Joardar had filed the complaint case No. 125/2023 on 11.09.2023 as per scopes of Sec. 35 of C.P. Act of 2019 against the revisionist of this Revision Petition besides other 3 OPs of CC/125/2023 since his complaint regarding his purchased two wheeler Honda Dio Scooty so purchased on 21.11.2022 from the revisionist of this Revision Petition/OP 2 of the CC case 125/2023, over the technical glitches of the said scooty was not dealt with and entertained with positive note effectively by the OPs of CC/125/2023/ Revisionist of this instant Revision Petition, as claimed by the petitioner/complainant of CC/125/2023 according to his need.

    It appears from the case record that vide order dated 22.09.2023, the CC/125/2023 was admitted on 22.09.2023 provisionally by the concerned Ld. DCDRC, Purba Bardhaman, following its filing before that forum on 11.09.2023 by the complainant of CC/125/2023, Sujal Joardar.

    It appears further from the contents of CC/125/2023 that on 22.09.2023 the Ld. Concerned DCDRC was pleased to fix 13.10.2023 for S/R and appearance of all the 4 OPs of CC/125/2023 and directed the complainant of CC/125/2023 Sujal Joardar/Respondent of this Revision on 22.09.2023 to file requisites for issuance of notice upon all the 04 OPs of CC/125/2023.

    It appears from the available materials on record of CC/125/2023 that vide Order dated 13.10.2023 the OP 2 of CC/125/2023/Revisionist petitioner of this Revision had turned up before the Ld. Concerned DCDRC, Purba Bardhaman and by filing a petition prayed for scope to file Vokalatnama and Written Version on the next date and that prayer of the OP 2 of CC/125/2023 was allowed by the Ld. Concerned DCDRC and 17.11.2023 was fixed by the Ld. Concerned DCDRC for appearance of the OPs 1, 3 and 4 of CC/125/2023 with written version and filing of Written Version by the remaining OP of the said CC i.e. by the OP 2 of the said CC/125/2023.

    The case record reveals on 17.11.2023 OP 2 of CC/125/2023 i.e. the revisionist petitioner of the instant revision i.e. Bengal Auto represented by it’s proprietor Abhishek Khan had prayed for time before the Ld. DCDRC, Purba Bardhaman to file Written version on subsequent date. It appears that the said prayer of the OP 2 of CC/125/2023 was not entertained by the Ld. DCDRC, Purba Bardhaman on consideration of the fact that since the S/R of CC/125/2023 upon the OP 2 of CC/125/2023 was served and delivered upon the OP 2 of the said CC/125/2023 on 30.09.2023. So, the statutory period to file written version by the OP 2 of CC/125/2023 in CC/125/2023 was over. By the said order dated 17.11.2023 passed by the Ld. DCDRC in CC/125/2023 the said CC No. 125/2023 was directed to be proceeded ex-parte against the OP 2 of the said CC.

   It is relevant to mention here that by the said order dated 17.11.2023 passed in CC/125/2023, the Ld. DCRC, Purba Bardhaman was pleased to direct that the further proceeding of CC/125/2023 to proceed ex-parte against the OP 3 of CC/125/2023 since the S/R upon the OP 3 of CC/125/2023 revealed that summons was served upon OP 3 of CC/125/2023 in connection with that CC on 30.09.2023 too and since the OP 3 of CC/125/2023 had not also filed Written version in CC/125/2023 by 17.11.2023 reflecting thereby catergoriiarlly that the OP 3 of CC/125/2023 too has failed to file written version from its end in CC/125/2023 within stipulated statutory period fixed for that purpose

    The caser record reveals further that vide order dated 21.11.2023, passed in CC/125/2023, the Ld. Concerned DCDRC was pleased to fix the exparte hearing of C/125/2023 against the remaining other two OPs of CC/125/2023 i.e. OP 1 and 4 of the said CC since the said two OPs also had not filed their respective written versions, from their end in CC/125/2023 though those two OP Nos. 1 and 4 of CC/125/2023, even on receiving summons in respect of CC/125/2023 on 04.10.2023 and 03.10.2023 respectively, had not filed their written version in that CC within the stipulated time period, fixed for that purpose, as per scopes of the relevant provision of CP Act of 2019.

    It appears from the available materials on record that assailing the impugned order 17.11.2023 passed by the Ld. DCDRC, Purba Bardhaman in CC/125/2023 the OP 2 of the said CC had filed the instant Revision Petition, on being  debarred by the concerned  Ld. DCDRC from filing written version, from it’s end, in the said CC, for his failure to file written version in CC/125/2023 by 14.11.2023 i.e. within the statutory stipulated time, fixed for that purpose, as ascertained by the  concerned Ld. DCDRC, on its holding that the concerned OP 2 of CC/125/2023 had received summons in connection with  CC/.125/2023 on 30.09.2023.

     This is appearing form the instant Revision Petition filed on 08.01.2024 by the revisionist petitioner of this Revision/OP 2 of CC/125/2023 to assail the impugned order dated 17.11.2023 of CC/125/2023, the revisionist contended that the said order is not sustainable and the revisionist was unjustifiably denied to file the W.V. along with the relevant documents in CC/125/2023 and thereby has been deprived, without just cause, by the impugned order dated 17.11.2023, passed in CC/125/2023 to substantiate it’s own case in CC/125/2023 and the revisionist had contended that ought not to be done by the Ld. Concerned DCDRC, Purba Bardhaman since by passing the impugned dated 17.11.2023 in CC/125/2023, Ld. Commission inappreciably blocked the scope of revisionist to reflect the true perspective of the OP No. 2’s case in CC/125/2023, to materialize it’s own case, on merit.

    It appears from the available materials on record that by filing separate IA/77/2024 that the complainant of CC/125/2023 Sujal Joardar/Respondent of this Revision had challenged the instant Revision Petition contending that the impugned order dated 17.11.2023 passed in CC/125/2023 by the Ld. DCDRC is inassailable  and is on the other hand, legally sustainable, deserving thereby no interference in any way or manner.

   The gist of the contents of this IA/77/2024, filed by the respondent of the Revision Petition/Complainant of CC/125/2023 reflects that in consonance in the relevant provision of C. P. Act of 2019, most specifically as per scopes of Sec. 38 (3) (a) of C.P. Act of 2019, the Ld. DCDRC, Purba Bardhaman has passed the legally correct order vide order dated 17.11.2023 in CC/125/2023 and there appears nothing legally sustainable to interfere with the order and the same deserves to be legally appreciated and affirmed.

   In support of this submission of the Ld. Counsel for the respondent cited the reference of M/S. Dady’s Builder Pvt. Ltd. & Another VS Manisha Bhargava and Another pronounced on 11.02.2021 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the respondent has also referred a Press Information Bureau Report posted on 20.05.2022 by PIB Delhi, Department of Consumer Affairs.

   I have given due consideration to the recrimination of the Ld. Counsels of the contesting parties of this revision petition and IA which are both heard at a time because the contents of these two matters are in extricable and related to each other very closely, needing to be heard at a time.

    On scanning the available materials on record of CC/125/2023 including the impugned order dated 17.11.2023 passed in CC/125/2023, submission of both sides, I find that the revisionist was duly summoned in connection with this case on 30.09.2023 to appear and contest in CC/125/2023. Even then, on being duly summoned on 30.09.2023 in CC/125/2023, the revisionist/petitioner of this Revision i.e. OP 2 of CC/125/2023 had not filed Written Version in connection with CC/125/2023 within the statutory stipulated time i.e. by 14.11.2023 as per scopes of Sec. 38 (3) (a) of C.P. Act of 2019 and as a result of that the impugned order was passed by the Ld. DCDRC, Purba Bardhaman in CC/125/2023 on 17.11.2023, disallowing the revisionist of RP/2/2024- OP 2 of CC/125/2023 represented by Abhishek Khan as proprietor of OP 2 of CC/125/2023  to file Written Version in CC/125/2023.

    Nothing legally appreciable and convincing has been forthcoming to assail the impugned order dated 17.11.2023 passed CC/125/2023 and to prove the impugned order as legally inappreciable and not sustainable in the eye of law.

     Having regards to the findings of the judgement of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. VS Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. reflected in (2020) 5 SCC 757 dated 04.03.2020 and having regard to the finding of the Diamond Exports & Anr. VS United India Insurance Company Limited & Ors. Pronounced in Civil Appeal No. 7546 of 2021 dated 14.12.2021, I feel inclined to hold that the impugned order dated 17.11.2023 passed in CC/125/2023 is legally sustainable and deserves no interference. Accordingly the instant Revision RP/2/2024 deserves no positive consideration and on the other hand IA/77/2024 deserves to stands affirmed.

Hence,

                                    ORDERED

The Revision Petition RP/2/2024 filed by the Revisionist of this Revision Petition (RP/2/2024), viz. Bengal Auto, represented by its Proprietor Abhishek Khan  dated 08.01.2024 stands rejected on contest and is thus disposed off.

The instant IA/77/2024 filed on 15.05.2024 by the Respondent of this Revision Petition RP/2/2024 i.e. the complainant of CC/125/2023, Sujal Joardar stands affirmed on contest and is thus disposed off.

Both the Revision Petition and IA Petition, as mentioned above, are thus disposed off on contest.

Let a copy of these final orders/judements of RP/2/2024 and IA/77/2024 be transmitted to the Ld. Concerned DCDRC, Purba Bardhaman as early as practicable for perusal and doing the needful according to law.

Free copy of these orders in respect of RP/2/2024 and IA/77/2024 be furnished to the contesting parties of both the RP and IA, as mentioned above, respectively, as early as practicable, as per scopes of the relevant provisions of the C.P. Act of 2019, Rules and Regulations (as amended time to time).