HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT MANDAL, PRESIDENT

1. Challenge is to the order No. 12 dated 17.07.2023 passed by the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata, Unit III (South ), (in short, ‘the District Commission’) in connection with Misc. Application No. M.A./170/2022 arising out of consumer case No. CC/561/2021 thereby the prayer for holding local inspection by appointment of an Advocate Commissioner was allowed.

2. The respondent No. 1 / complainant instituted a complaint case being No. 561/2021 against the revisionist under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

3. The revisionist / opposite party No. 1 entered appearance in this case and contesting the case by filing written version. The complainant / respondent No. 1 filed an application praying for holding a local inspection by appointment of an Advocate Commissioner. The said application for holding local inspection by appointment of an Advocate Commissioner was allowed by the order impugned.

4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order, the revisionist / opposite party has filed the present revisional application.

5. Learned Advocate appearing for the revisionist has urged that the Learned District Commission below did not fully appreciate and consider the facts and circumstances of the written objection filed by the opposite party against the application for inspection.

6. He has further urged that the Learned District Commission travelled beyond the scope and ambit of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and allowed the application for holding the local inspection.

7. He has further urged that the order dated 17.07.2023 is contrary to the facts and materials on record and the law applicable thereto. Learned Advocate appearing for the opposite party / revisionist has further urged that the Learned District Commission below failed to consider and appreciate the facts and circumstances of the case and erred in passing the impugned order dated 17.07.2023 passed in connection with the application being No. M.A./170/2022. As such, the Learned Advocate appearing for the revisionist has prayed for dismissal of the application for holding local inspection.

8. Having heard the Learned Advocate appearing for the revisionist and on perusal of the record it appears to us that by filing the instant complaint case, the complainant / respondent has claimed that by agreement for sale he agreed to purchase 3 plots being Nos. A 26, A 27 & A 28, even though the deed of conveyance has been executed in favour of the complainants in respect of those 3 plots but the possession has not yet been handed over to the complainant. It appears from the written objection filed by the opposite party against the local inspection application that the opposite parties sent a letter to the complainant dated 19.08.2018 offering to change the plots measuring total area of 10 kottahs from A to U series and those fresh plots were numbered as U4, U5, U6 & U7. It is found that possession of the plots has not been handed over to the complainant. As per version of the complainant development works of those plots were not completed. Therefore, we are of the view that for effective and proper adjudication of this case local inspection of those plots is required. We find that there is no error of law apparent on the face of the record, therefore, the order shall not be interfered by this Commission in revision petition.

9. Therefore, we are of the view that Learned District Commission has rightly allowed the local inspection application and an Advocate was appointed as an Advocate Commissioner to hold inspection in respect of those plots as mentioned in the schedule of the petition.

10. On perusal of the said order under challenge it appears to us that there is no incorrectness, illegality and impropriety in the impugned order passed by the Learned District Commission.

11. In view of the above, we hold that the order of the Learned District Commission below should not be disturbed. Therefore, 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. Learned District Commission below is directed to dispose of the case as early as possible without granting any adjournments to either of the parties.

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