State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Damodar Valley Corporation vs Bharat Hi Tech (Cement) Pvt. Ltd. on 13 March, 2012
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission West Bengal BHABANI BHAVAN (GROUND FLOOR) 31, BELVEDERE ROAD, ALIPORE KOLKATA 700 027 S.C. CASE NO. : RC/112/2011 DATE OF FILING : 14.10.2011 DATE OF FINAL ORDER: 13.03.2012 REVISIONAL PETITIONERS 1. Damodar Valley Corporation A statutory body incorporated under the Damodar Valley Corporation Act, 1948, having its head office At DVC Tower, VIP Road, Kolkata-700 054. 2. The Chairman, Damodar Valley Corporation having its office at DVC Tower, VIP Road, Kolkata-700 054. 3. The Chief Engineer (Commercial) Damodar Valley Corporation having its office at DVC Tower, VIP Road, Kolkata-700 054. 4. The Chief Engineer (Transmission) Damodar Valley Corporation Having its office at Maithon, P.O. Maithon Dam, Dist. Dhanbad. 5. The Superintending Engineer (Commercial) Damodar Valley Corporation having its office at DVC Tower, VIP Road, Kolkata-700 054. 6. The Station-in-Charge DVC Sub-station, P.O. Bongabari, P.S. Purulia Mafassal, Dist. Purulia, West Bengal. OPPOSITE PARTY Bharat Hi Tech (Cement) Pvt. Ltd. A company having its registered office at Bongabari, P.O. V.Nagar, Purulia 723 147 West Bengal. BEFORE : HONBLE JUSTICE MR. KALIDAS MUKHERJEE, PRESIDENT MEMBER : MRS. S.MAJUMDER MEMBER : MR. S.COARI FOR THE PETITIONER : Mr. Samrat Sengupta, Ld. Advocate FOR THE RESPONDENT / O.P.: Mr. Barun Prasad, Ld. Advocate : O R D E R :
MR. S.COARI, LD. MEMBER The present Revisional Application has been directed against the Order dt. 24 dt. 25.8.11 passed by the Purulia District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in C.C. No. 35 of 2009 wherein the Ld. District Forum rejected the application filed by the OPs dt. 4.8.11 wherein the Ops prayed for rejecting the interrogatories filed on behalf of the complainant.
The complainant before the Ld. District Forum filed some interrogatories with a prayer for reply to the same by the Ops. The Ops/Revisionists filed an application with a prayer to reject the interrogatories filed by the complainant without answering to the interrogatories. The Ld. District Forum while rejecting the application filed by the Ops/Revisions has observed that there was just ground on the part of the complainant to file interrogatories and the Ops must answer to those interrogatories and accordingly, rejected the application filed on behalf of the Ops.
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with such rejection order the Ops have preferred the present Revisional Application.
The only moot question that revolves round the present Appeal is as to whether the Ld. District Forum was justified enough in disposing of the petition of complaint in the manner as mentioned above.
DECISION WITH REASONS At the time of hearing it has been submitted on behalf of the Revisional Petitioners that the complainant having adopted a dubious procedure in asking for answers to the interrogatories the Ld. District Forum ought to have rejected the same as the manner in which the complainant put forward the interrogatories was not permissible under the Act and that in not allowing the prayer of the Ops the Ld. District Forum has committed gross error and miscarriage of justice and on this score alone the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
We have duly considered the submissions so put forward on behalf of the Revisional Petitioners and have also gone through the materials on record and find that in this case during summary proceeding the complainant filed the interrogatories and the Ld. District Forum directed the Ops to answer those interrogatories. We find nothing wrong in the order so passed by the Ld. District Forum and are also of the opinion that by passing the impugned order the Ld. District Forum has committed no wrong and/or error and miscarriage of justice and considering the present Revisional Application in the light of above observation we find no merit in the present Revisional Application and the same is liable to be dismissed. In the result, the Revisional Application fails.
Hence, it is ORDERED that the Revisional Application stands dismissed on contest without any order as to cost. The impugned order stands confirmed.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT