MR. SHYAMAL KUMAR GHOSH, MEMBER

The instant revision petition  has been filed by the Revisionist/opposite party  challenging the order impugned  dated 07.01.2022  passed by  Ld. Additional Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajarhat , New Town in connection with MA case being No. 78/2021 (arising out of RBT/CC/121/2020) wherein  the Ld. Trial Commission has been pleased to allow  the aforesaid MA case on contest against the OP No. 1 and  direction has been given to the complainant to file amended complaint showing the proposed amendment in the said petition of complaint.   By aggrieved  and dissatisfied with such order  the opposite party /Revisionist  has preferred the instant revision application praying for setting aside the order dated 07.01.2022.

The record has been taken up for hearing.

We have heard the Ld. Advocates appearing for both sides over the revision application at length and in full.

We have meticulously perused  the materials available on the record and also have considered  the submissions of both sides.

Hearing has been concluded.

It is fact that  due to unintentional mistake  some relevant facts had not been incorporated  in the petition of complaint and if the said fact  is not incorporated in the petition of complaint, the complainant will suffer irreparable loss and injury.  Be it mentioned here that  the aforesaid amendment  would not change the nature and character of the instant case.

The OP No. 1 has filed written objection  against the MA case and submitted that due to the aforesaid amendment  the nature  and character of the instant CC case would be changed and as such the OP No. 1  has prayed for rejection of the MA application.

We have carefully perused the relevant documents and papers  wherefrom it appears to us  that by filing the proposed amendment petition , the complainant has   tried to incorporate one prayer in the prayer portion of the  petition  of complaint which is reproduced as follows :-

“An order direction all OPs jointly and severally to pay the alternative accommodation charges @ Rs. 6,000/- to the Petitioner since  delivery of possession”.

It is also fact that page no. 9 of the development agreement  Clause xiii(a) clearly reveals that “from the date of delivery of possession of the said property, the developer shall provide for a suitable alternative accommodation  to the landlords/land ladies and  rent of which  shall be payable  by the developer  @ Rs. 6,000/- only per month including electricity, water and other statutory charges for his occupation till the date of completion of development and construction work.”

When  there is a clear terms and conditions regarding alternative accommodation charges @ Rs. 6,000/-  payable to the complainant since the delivery of the possession , we think that   the opportunity should be given to the complainant  to amend  the relevant facts  and circumstances  otherwise  the complainant will suffer  irreparable loss and injury.  Be it mentioned here that  the evidence has not yet  been started.  So, naturally the OP No. 1 has an ample opportunity to  make cross examination of the complainant  by filing questionnaire.  Moreover,  it should be remember that the Consumer Protection Act has been enacted for the benefit of the Consumers. So,  at present  we cannot throw out the instant CC case by disallowing  the aforesaid MA case.

Keeping in view of the above observation, there is no hesitation to hold that the order impugned dated 07.01.2022 is very correct, proper  and justified.  There is no such wrong , error , mistake  or any illegality  in passing the order impugned dated 07.01.2022. Accordingly, we  confirm the order dated  07.01.2022 passed by the Ld. Trial Commission.

Hence,  the aforesaid Revision Petition being No. RP/24/2022  filed by the  OP/Revisionist  stands rejected without any order as to costs.

RP/24/2022 stands disposed of accordingly.

Note in the register.

Let a copy of this order be transmitted  to the Ld. DCDRC, Rajarhat, New Town for compliance and for necessary action.