Anjali Gupta vs Arup Kumar Sengupta

SURESH CHANDRA, MEMBER In a consumer complaint bearing no.19/S/2006 filed by the respondents before the District Forum, the petitioner/OP raised an objection against the complaint on the point of its maintainability through an application dated 07.06.2006 submitted to the District Forum. District Forum rejected the application and held that the consumer complaint is quite maintainable. On a subsequent appeal before the State Commission, the matter was remitted back to the District Forum by the State Commission with a direction to dispose of the application on the point of maintainability after hearing both the sides. Accordingly, the matter was heard by the District Forum on 21.05.2010 and after hearing, the District Forum rejected the contention in respect of maintainability raised by the petitioner/OP on contest. The contention raised by the petitioner was two-fold, firstly that the Deed of Agreement entered into between the parties being an unregistered one and not properly stamped, no reliance should be placed on it, the same being not admissible in evidence and secondly, that the District Forum lacked jurisdiction to entertain a dispute of this nature inasmuch as the same admittedly falls under the provisions of West Bengal Building (Regulation and Promotion Act) 1993. The District Forum while disposing of the maintainability application observed that the Forum had adequate jurisdiction to entertain and look into the controversy between the parties and that the point of unregistered Deed of Agreement and/or subsequent cancellation of the same can only be adjudicated through regular trial including evidence led on those points by both the sides and accordingly dismissed the application on the point of maintainability raised by the petitioner/OP. Aggrieved by this order dated 21.05.2010, the petitioner/OP carried the same in a revision petition before the State Commission which did not find favour of the State Commission and was dismissed by it through its impugned order dated 14.09.2010. It is against this order of the State Commission that the present revision petition has been filed challenging the same. While dismissing the revision petition of the petitioner/OP, the State Commission has recorded the following reasons in favour of the impugned order:- We have duly considered the submissions so put forward on behalf of the Revisionist and have gone through the materials on record including the impugned order and find that in this case the complainant/OPs have instituted a case before the Ld. District Forum for redressal against the OP/Revisionist in respect of a flat in question alleged to have been purchased by the complainants in pursuance of an agreement entered into between the parties, which the OP is not complying with. The OP/Revisionist, on the other hand, is trying to put up a case to the effect that the petition of complaint is not at all maintainable on the point of the Deed of Agreement being not unregistered and not properly stamped and that the Forum below lacked jurisdiction to entertain the petition of complaint. From the submissions put forward on behalf of both sides and having considered the materials on record we are of the opinion that at this stage it is not necessary to call for the LCR inasmuch as we are quite satisfied that from the available materials on record the effective and proper adjudication of the present Revisional Application is possible. We have carefully gone through the impugned order and find that the Ld. District Forum has more or less considered all the aspects of the cases of respective parties and has rightly adjudged that the complaint case is quite maintainable and rejected the application on the point of maintainability filed by the Revisionist. So far as it relates to the points raised by the Revisionist before the Ld. District Forum, we also take note of the fact that the Ld. District Forum has appreciated the points so raised by the Revisionist and has rightly observed that the District Forum has adequate jurisdiction to entertain the disputes raised by the complainants through their petition of complaint filed before the Ld. District Forum. As regards the other points raised by the Revisionist, we are not in conformity with the observation of the Ld. District Forum so far as it relates to adjudication of the nitty-gritty of the case through trial proper and after allowing the parties to adduce evidence in respect of their respective cases. In this regard, we are not also unmindful of the fact that the OP is adopting dilatory tactics, which is evident from the fact that without filing written version it has come up with a petition on the point of maintainability of the complaint case, which on the face of the record is not at all maintainable. On scrutiny of the impugned order we find no irregularity or illegality and as such, we are not inclined to interfere with the finding of the Ld. District Forum, which, in our opinion, should be affirmed. In the result, the Revisional Application fails.

WE agree with the view taken by the State Commission. The short issue involved in the revision petition regarding maintainability of the consumer complaint before the Fora below having been suitably and adequately dealt with by the Fora below by their concurrent orders rejecting the contentions of the petitioner, we do not find any justification or good ground to interfere with the impugned order. The revision petition, therefore, stands dismissed and the impugned order of the State Commission is confirmed. Since it is an old pending consumer dispute filed in the year 2006, the parties are directed to appear before the District Forum on 19.05.2011 and the District Forum is hereby directed to dispose of the complaint expeditiously as per the directions already given in the impugned order dated 14.09.2010 of the State Commission.