HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT MANDAL, PRESIDENT
- This revision petition has been filed by the revisionist / opposite party No. 1 against the respondents / opposite party Nos. 2 & 3 and complainant. The respondents / opposite party Nos. 2 & 3 and complainant challenged the impugned order dated 19.12.2023 passed by the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata, Unit - II ( in short, ‘the District Commission’) in connection with consumer case No. CC/335/2021 whereby the Learned District Commission allowed the complaint case filed by the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 / complainants. The respondent Nos. 1 & 2 being the complainants instituted a complaint case being No. CC/335/2021 against the revisionist and the respondent Nos. 3 & 4 praying for the following reliefs :-
“a) To admit and register the complaint;
b) After hearing please to direct the opposite party no. 1 and 2 to return back the paid amount of Rs.22,69,091/- to the complainant along with interest @18% p.a. from the date of payment till realization;
c) To award compensation to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- from the opposite party no. 1 and 2 for harassment, mental agony, financial loss;
d) To direct the opposite party no. 1 and 2 to pay punitive damages Rs.5,00,000/- payable before the Legal Aid authority or Consumer Welfare Fund;
e) To award Rs.1,00,000/- as litigation cost;
f) Pass any other relief or reliefs as your Honour may deem fit and proper.”
2. After filing of the complaint case notices were duly served upon the revisionist and the respondent Nos. 2 & 3. The revisionist and the respondent No. 3 did not appear to contest the case by filing written version. Only the opposite party No. 3 entered appearance in this case by filing written version denying the material averments levelled against it.
3. After hearing the complainants and the opposite party No. 3, the Learned District Commission was pleased to allow the complaint case being No. CC/335/2021 by the order impugned which is reproduced as under :-
“that the case be and the same is decreed ex parte against the OPs 1 and 2 with cost of Rs.5,000/- and dismissed against the OP-3 on contest.
The complainant do get the decree as prayed for.
The OPs 1 and 2 are directed to refund the amount of Rs.22,69,091/- to the complainants along with interest @ 9% p.a. as per observation of the Apex Court from the date of filing of this case till realisation either jointly or severally.
The OPs 1 and 2 are further directed to pay compensation of Rs.30,000/- towards monetary loss, mental agony and harassment along with litigation cost of 5,000/- to the complainants either jointly or severally.
All the decreetal amounts as mentioned above will be paid by the OPs 1 and 2 within 45 days from the date of this order id the complainants will be at liberty to execute the decree as per law.
Copy of the judgment be supplied to the parties free of cost as per mandate of the CP Act, 2019. The Judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for perusal of the parties.”
4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said impugned order dated 19.12.2023 passed by the Learned District Commission the revisionist / opposite party No. 1 has preferred the instant appeal.
5. Heard the Learned Advocate appearing for the revisionist. Also carefully perused the memo of revision petition and other relevant documents.
6. Having heard the Learned Advocate appearing for the revisionist and on careful perusal of the record it is found that the Learned District Commission properly considered the evidence and facts and circumstances of the case and finally arrived at a conclusion and passed the judgment, which, according to me, calls for no interference by this Commission.
7. On perusal of the impugned order under challenge it appears to me that there is no incorrectness, illegality or impropriety in the impugned order passed by the Learned District Commission.
8. In view of the above discussion 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. So, the revisional application is without any merit.
9. Learned Advocate for the revisionist in support of her argument has relied on an unreported judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in connection with Civil Appeal No. 1065 of 2021. However, reliance of this judgment in the adjudication of this revision petition, facts being at variance, would be misplaced.
10. Under this facts and circumstances, the revisional application filed by the revisionist should be dismissed.
11. In the result, the revision petition be and the same is dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only). The revisionist is directed to deposit the cost by way of a Demand Draft, in the name of SCWF, within 4 (four) weeks from today. In case, the revisionist fails to deposit the costs within the time period, then it shall also be liable to pay interest @9% per annum till realization.
12. List the matter on 19.07.2024 for compliance.
13. Let the copy of this order be sent down to the Learned District Commission below at once.
14. Office to comply.
