HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT MANDAL, PRESIDENT
- Challenge is to the order no. 20 dated 05/08/2024 passed by the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Howrah ( in short, ‘the District Commission’) in connection with consumer case No. CC/241/2020 thereby allowing the application filed by the complainant for expert examination of the building by a competent civil engineer. The respondent Nos. 1 & 2 being the complainants filed a consumer case being No. CC/241/2020 against the revisionist praying for the following reliefs :-
“a) an order directing the Opposite Party to refund the entire price of the flat being Rs.20,30,000/- (Rupees twenty lakh thirty thousand) only alongwith an interest @10% per annum on the same amount to the Complainants from the date of payments made by or on behalf of the Complainants.
b) an order directing Opposite Party to pay the Complainant a sum of Rs.1,61,666/- (Rupees one lakh sixty one thousand six hundred and sixty six) only which the Complainants have incurred on account of Registration Fee & Stamp Duty and lawyer’s fees alongwith interest @10% per annum.
c) an order directing Opposite Party to pay the Complainants an order directing Opposite Party to pay the Complainant to pay sum of Rs.3,50,000/- (Rupees three lakh fifty thousand) only alongwith an interest @10% per annum being the cost of interior decoration incurred by the Complainants.
d) an order directing Opposite Party to pay the Complainants a consolidated amount of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lac) only on account of compensation for harassment, mental agony and huge financial and operational loss sustained by the Complainants due to the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties and
e) an order directing the Opposite Party to pay an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh) only as litigation cost and incidental thereto.
f) an ad-interim directing inspection of the building in question by an expert structural civil engineer to check the standard, fitness, structural stability, quality of the construction and other works in the building.
g) an ad-interim order directing the Opposite Party to stop unauthorized construction in the premises to prevent additional load on the defective building; and
h) Any other relief or reliefs the Complainant may be entitled to which this Learned Forum may deem fit and proper.”
2. The revisionist entered appearance in this case and contesting the case by filing written version. During trial the complainant filed an application for expert examination of the building. After hearing the said application filed by the complainant was allowed by the order impugned.
3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order the revisionist has preferred this revision application.
4. Heard the Learned Advocate appearing for the revisionist at length and in full. Perused the revisional application and the impugned order.
5. Having heard the Learned Advocate appearing for the revisionist and on perusal of the memo of revision petition and the impugned order it appears to me that the complainant in the petition has clearly and categorically stated in the petition of complaint that there are structural defects and damages in the suit building and the quality of the construction and other works of the building were very low. The revisionist / opposite party filed written objection denying it.
6. Under these facts and circumstances I am of the view that for the interest of proper and complete adjudication of the case appointment of an engineer is very necessary to evaluate the condition of the building including the structural defects and damages. In this case, obtaining assistance of an executive engineer, PWD (Civil), Howrah Division regarding opinion about the construction of the said building will not cause any prejudice to the opposite parties but will help to reach the just decision in this case. Therefore, I hold that the Learned District Commission has rightly allowed the application filed by the complainant for expert examination of the building by a competent civil engineer. In the result, it appears to me that there is no incorrectness, illegality and / or impropriety in the impugned order passed by the Learned District Commission.
7. In view of the above, I hold that the order of the Learned District Commission below should not be disturbed. Therefore, there is nothing to interfere with the impugned order. Therefore, the revisional application is without any merits. It is, therefore, dismissed.
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
The Learned District Commission below is directed to dispose of the case as early as possible without granting any unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties.
9. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Learned District Commission at once.
10. Office to comply.
