HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT MANDAL, PRESIDENT

1. This revisional application is at the instance of the revisionist / petitioner and is directed against the order No. 14 Dated 06.10.2023 passed by the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, North 24 Parganas at Barasat ( in short, ‘the District Commission’) in connection with consumer case No. CC/277/2022 whereby an application for appointment of Commissioner for holding local inspection was rejected.

2. Heard the revisionist / petitioner in person at length and in full.

3. It is submitted by the revisionist / petitioner that the order dated 06.10.2023 passed by the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, North 24 Parganas is not legal and valid to reach the just decision of the case. The report of the Commissioner is required otherwise the complainant will suffer irreparable loss and injury. So, the revisional application filed by the revisionist / petitioner should be allowed and the impugned order should be set aside.

4. We have considered the submissions of the revisionist / petitioner.

5. Having heard the revisionist / petitioner it appears to us that the complainant filed an application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner on 09.12.2022 and the said application was rejected by the order impugned.

6. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order the present revisional application has been filed by the revisionist / petitioner.

7. Before going into the validity of the impugned order it is necessary to notice that the very objectives and reasons of the act is to provide speedy and simple redressal of consumer disputes by a quasi judicial machinery at the District, State and Central levels and the said quasi judicial bodies will observe the principles of natural justice and keep in mind the specific nature of the complaint and award appropriate compensation. Sub section 9 of section 38 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 runs as follows :-

“For the purposes of this section, the District Commission shall have the same powers as are vested in a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 while trying a suit in respect of the following matters, namely :-

(a) the summoning and enforcing the attendance of any defendant or witness and examining the witness on oath;

(b) requiring the discovery and production of any document or other material object as evidence:

(c) receiving of evidence on affidavits;

(d) the requisitioning of the report of the concerned analysis or test from the appropriate laboratory or from any other relevant source;

(e) issuing of commissions for the examination of any witness, or document; and

(f) any other matter which may be prescribed by the Central Government.”

8. From the above it is clear that Commission shall have all the powers as are vested in civil court under the code of civil procedure, 1908 while trying a suit in respect of the above mentioned matters and all the provisions of the code of civil procedure are not applicable.

9. The act provides for the summary disposal of the complaints within the time frame mentioned therein. All the complaints where sample alleged defective goods is not sent to the appropriate laboratory are to be decided within three months whereas the complaints in which the sample of defective goods are so sent to the appropriate laboratory are to be decided within five months. If the Commissions are to resort to the appointment of a commissioner for local inspection, it will suddenly result in delay of disposal of the complaints and it appears that keeping in view of the above position, such power of civil court was not conferred upon the Commission by the legislature. The Commission cannot order for an appointment of an Advocate for local inspection for the purpose of collection of evidence. Moreover, it appears from the record that the petitioner has mentioned in the application for appointment of an Advocate for local inspection in paragraph No. 9. He prayed for appointment for a commissioner for submission of enquiry and investigation report within a month. But the complainant / revisionist / petitioner did not mention the point and / or points, for local inspection on which he is expecting a report of the commissioner.

10. In view of a specific legislative intent discernible from the aforesaid provision we are of the view that powers as exercisable by the Civil Court under order 39, Rule 7 of the Court are not available to the Consumer Fora under the Act.  It is, however, open for the revisionist / petitioner to establish the allegations by providing such evidence, as he is advised. In fact, as mentioned above under sub section 9 of section 38 of the Act evidence on affidavit can be received by the Consumer Fora under the Act which may be affidavit of experts including Advocate Commissioner and / or Civil Engineer.

11. In view of the above matter, we hold that the order passed by the Learned District Commission below should not be disturbed. There is nothing to interfere with the impugned order. So, the revisional application is without any merit. It is, therefore, dismissed.

12. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs.

13. The Learned District Commission is directed to dispose of this case as early as possible within a period of two months from the date of passing of this order.

14. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Learned District Commission below at once.