HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT MANDAL, PRESIDENT
- This Interlocutory Application has been filed by the appellant / complainant for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner and an Engineer Commissioner to visit the locale and for filing their report in respect of the said inspection.
- The facts to be taken notice of for the disposal of the present I.A. application are that the appellant / complainant had instituted a complaint case being No. CC/5/2021 against the respondents / opposite parties praying for the following reliefs :-
“i) To refund the excess amount he has taken showing higher carpet area and get the property registered in the name of the complainant;
ii) Compensation for all material defects and deviation from the sanctioned plan and building standards;
iii) To pay compensation amounting to Rs.15,00,000/- for causing mental pain and agony to the complainant at this age by his (opposite parties acts and activities);
iv) Litigation costs;
v) Others.”
3. S/R upon the opposite parties was completed through paper publication but the opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 did not turn up before the Learned District Commission. As such, the case against the opposite parties / respondents was heard ex parte. After taking evidence of the complainant the consumer case being No. CC/5/2021 was allowed. Against the order of the consumer case being No. CC/5/2021 the appellant / complainant has preferred the instant appeal.
4. I have heard the appellant / complainant in person and have carefully perused the record of the case including the present application. On due consideration of the submission made by the appellant / complainant and after careful perusal of the record I find that the application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner and an Engineer Commissioner has been filed after disposal of the consumer case and the present appeal. The case is at the stage of final hearing. On careful perusal of the record it appears to me that during the pendency of the consumer case an engineer commissioner was appointed to examine on the alleged defects in the flat. It also appears to me that Learned Engineer Commissioner visited the locale and inspected the property and submitted his report on 24/03/2022 before the Learned District Commission. It also appears to me that after submission of the report by the Learned Engineer Commissioner the complainant / appellant did not raise any objection before the Learned District Commission with regard to the report dated 24/03/2022 submitted by the Learned Engineer Commissioner. Therefore, I find that the inspection by the Engineer Commissioner has been held in the consumer case being No. CC/5/2021. Therefore, I am of the view / opinion that no further inspection is at all necessary for proper adjudication of this appeal. Moreover, I find that the appellant / complainant wants to collect evidence through the agency of the commissioner which is not permissible in law.
5. Under these facts and circumstances, I conclude that the application filed by the appellant is not maintainable in law and is liable to be rejected with costs of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) to be paid by the appellant in favour of the SCWF.
6. In the result, the application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner and an Engineer Commissioner to visit the locale filed by the appellant / complainant is rejected with costs of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) to be paid by the appellant in favour of the SCWF. The appellant is directed to deposit such costs in favour of the SCWF within one month from the date of passing of this order.
7. The application is, thus, disposed of accordingly.
8. Next date for final hearing shall be fixed after making payment of such costs.
9. The application is, thus, disposed of accordingly.
10. To 16/01/2025 for filing copy of money receipt by the appellant showing payment of costs in favour of SCWF by the appellant / complainant.
