SUNITY KUMAR CHAUDHARY vs RAHUL KUMAR SINGH

-IN this revision filed against the order dated 31. 5. 2007 of West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata dismissing the appeal against the order 22. 12. 2005 of the District Forum whereby the complaint was dismissed, the submission advanced by petitioner No. 1 complainant No. 1 is that Flat No. 4b at 10, Manoharpukur Road, Kolkata-26 along with car parking space was sold by the respondent/opposite party for Rs. 15,00,000 while the furniture inside the flat was for Rs. 7,00,000. After registration of sale deed, when the possession of flat was handed over, a part of the sold furniture valued approximately at Rs. 4. 5 lakh, was found to have been removed by the respondent and the relief claimed in complaint pertained to payment of that amount. According to him, both the Fora below had acted erroneously in dismissing the complaint/appeal on the ground of the petitioners not being a "consumer" having sold the said flat to Samagata Das later on.

ALONG with response filed to the Revision Petition, the respondent has filed typed copy of the writing dated 6. 12. 2004 executed between the parties. Attention of the District Forum was invited to this writing as may be seen from the above order dated 22. 12. 2005 but no opinion was expressed by the Forum on this writing. This writing, being material, reads thus: "i Sunity Kumar Chaudhary have purchased the Flat No. 4b at 10, Manoharpukur Road, Kol-26, from Shri Rahul Kumar Singh at a price of Rs. twenty-two lakh along with the Car Parking space and furniture out of which Rs. one lakh was due against a cheque (post-dated) of Rs. one lakh was given to the Vendor Rahul and now for some inconvenience I am taking back that cheque No. 952695 drawn on SBI. Serampore, dated 7. 12. 2004 and I am giving Rahul back the furniture of the guest room and of the hall which Rahul is taking away today (6. 12. 2004) valued at Rs. one lakh only. No further claim shall now arise from both the parties. "

Petitioner No. 1 submits that the said writing was obtained under coercion. Petitioner No. 1 seems to have not lodged any FIR with the Police for his being coerced to execute the writing by the respondent. Complaint before the District Forum was filed some time in April, 2005, after more than four months of the execution of the writing. In case a substantial part of the furniture sold had been removed by the respondent, petitioner No. 1 would not have mentioned in the said writing that no further claim shall now arise from both the parties. In this backdrop, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Revision is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. Revision Petition dismissed.