State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sk. Maqbul Hossain & Ors. vs Mrs. Ania Rahman Biswas on 2 December, 2013
D R A F T
State Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission
West Bengal
11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087
S.C. CASE NO.
: RP/148/2013
(Arising out
of order dated 24.10.2013 of Consumer Case No. 239/2013 of D.C.D.R.F., South 24
Pgs.)
Date of Filing : 08.11.2013 Date of Final Order : 02.12.2013
APPELLANTS/COMPLAINANTS :
1. Sk Maqbul Hossain
2. Sri Tapan Ghosh
3. Managing Director of
M/S ABS
Land Development
and Construction Pvt. Ltd.
having its registered all are at
office at 13/B Jatin Das Road
Kolkata 700029.
RESPONDENTS/O.P.S :
Samar Dasgupta
s/o Sri Jagajyoto Dasgupta
residing at B2/10, C.R.P
Quarter,
P.O Kalyani, District
Nadia,
(Near Picnic Garden).
S.C. CASE NO.
: RP/149/2013
(Arising out
of order dated 24.10.2013 of Consumer Case No. 240/2013 of D.C.D.R.F., South 24
Pgs.)
Date of Filing : 08.11.2013 Date of Final Order :
02.12.2013
APPELLANTS/COMPLAINANTS :
1. Sk Maqbul Hossain
2. Sri Tapan Ghosh
3. Managing Director of
M/S ABS
Land Development
and Construction Pvt. Ltd.
having its registered all are at
office at 13/B Jatin Das Road
Kolkata 700029.
RESPONDENTS/O.P.S :
Mrs. Ania Rahman Biswas
w/o Saidur Rahaman Biswas
residing at 81/37, Old Police Lane,
Gorabazar, P.O Berhampore,
District Murshidabad.
S.C. CASE NO.
: RP/150/2013
(Arising out
of order dated 24.10.2013 of Consumer Case No. 241/2013 of D.C.D.R.F., South 24
Pgs.)
Date of Filing : 08.11.2013 Date of Final Order :
02.12.2013
APPELLANTS/COMPLAINANTS :
1. Sk Maqbul Hossain
2. Sri Tapan Ghosh
3. Managing Director of
M/S ABS
Land Development
and Construction Pvt. Ltd.
having its registered all are at
office at 13/B Jatin Das Road
Kolkata 700029.
RESPONDENTS/O.P.S :
Mr. Debasis Ghosh
s/o Lt. Nani Gopal Ghosh
residing at 4, Hiralal Sonar Lane,
Gorabazar, P.O Berhampore,
District Murshidabad.
S.C. CASE NO.
: RP/151/2013
(Arising out
of order dated 24.10.2013 of Consumer Case No. 242/2013 of D.C.D.R.F., South 24
Pgs.)
Date of Filing : 08.11.2013 Date of Final Order :
02.12.2013
APPELLANTS/COMPLAINANTS :
1. Sk Maqbul Hossain
2. Sri Tapan Ghosh
3. Managing Director of
M/S ABS
Land Development
and Construction Pvt. Ltd.
having its registered all are at
office at 13/B Jatin Das Road
Kolkata 700029.
RESPONDENTS/O.P.S :
Mr. Tuhin Ghosh
s/o Sri Nityananda Ghosh
residing at 55/5/E, Churamon
Chowdhury Lane, P.O Berhampore,
District Murshidabad.
BEFORE : HONBLE JUSTICE : Sri Kalidas
Mukherjee,
President.
MEMBER : Smt. Mridula Roy.
FOR THE PETITIONER /
APPELLANT : Mr. S. N. Basu,
Ld. Advocate.
FOR THE RESPONDENT / O.P.S. : Mrs. Ruma Chakraborty,
Ld. Advocate.
: O R D E R :
MRIDULA ROY, MEMBER.
These four Revisional Petitions are of identical nature and heard analogously and this judgement will govern all the four Revisional Petitions.
Case of the Complainants, in four cases, before the Ld. District Forum, in short, is that they entered into agreements with the O.P., ABS Land Development and Construction Private Limited on different dates for purchasing residential plots under the project namely Pailan City launched by the said O.P., Private Limited.
Accordingly, the Complainants paid the entire amount of consideration and got the respective plots of land registered in favour of them respectively. But even after registration of the said plots of land the O.P., Private Limited did not handover the actual possession of the plots of land.
Hence, the Complainants have filed their respective complaints before the Ld. District Forum praying for direction upon the O.Ps to demarcate the exact plot of land upon construction of road and other development works and to pay compensation as well as the litigation cost to the Complainants.
The O.Ps appeared. The O.P. Nos. 1& 2 i.e. the said Private Limited and the Managing Director of it filed a petition dated 23.09.2013 challenging the maintainability of the petition of complaint praying for rejection of the same.
The Ld. District Forum vide order No. 9 dated 24.10.2013 rejected the petition dated 23.09.2013 filed by the O.P. Nos. 1 & 2 challenging the maintainability of the case without hearing both sides on merits of the petition and fixed 11.11.2013 for filing W.V., in default, exparte hearing against the O.Ps.
Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order the O.Ps have preferred the instant Revisional Petitions praying for setting aside the order being No. 9 dated 24.10.2013 on the ground that the petition dated 23.09.2013 was filed by the Petitioner at 04.05 p.m. which was within the courts hour. In the Revisional Petitions the Petitioners have also taken the ground that their Ld. Advocate was seriously ill for implantation of pacemaker and thus, he could not be present before the Ld. District Forum on the date and sent his Ld. Junior for filing the said application dated 23.09.2013.
In course of argument Ld. Advocate for the Revisional Petitioners has submitted that the Revisional Petitioners cannot be deprived of the right of hearing in respect of hearing of the petition challenging maintainability of the petition of complaint only for the laches on the part of their Ld. Advocate. Therefore, the Ld. Advocate has prayed for order so that they can be heard in respect of the petition dated 23.09.2013.
Ld. Advocate for the O.P. Complainant has submitted that the Complainants have not been served with the copy of the petition dated 23.09.2013 filed by the O.P. Nos. 1 & 2 challenging the maintainability of the case. Ld. Advocate for the O.P. Complainants further submitted that ample opportunities were given to the O.Ps to contest the case but on every occasion they showed their dilatory tactics for not being present in time. Therefore, as the Ld. Advocate for the O.P. Complainants submitted, the Ld. District Forum rightly rejected the petition dated 23.09.2013 without hearing the same. However, the Ld. Advocate for the O.P. Complainants has submitted that she has no objection if the petition dated 23.09.2013 is to be heard in presence of both sides.
On perusal of record it appears that the application challenging maintainability of the petition of complaint was not heard on merits. Ld. District Forum observed that on 23.09.2013 a petition was filed challenging the maintainability at 04.05 p.m. when the other side was not present and considering the situation the order was passed to the effect that the O.P. Nos. 1 & 2 would serve copy of the said petition to the Complainants within seven days from the date of filing i.e. 23.09.2013 and to report about the compliance to the Forum on the date fixed for hearing of the petition. Ld. District Forum further observed a caution was also given to the effect that if the copy of the petition was not served the petition dated 23.09.2013 should stand rejected, but in spite of such caution the order was not complied with and, therefore, the Ld. District Forum rejected the petition dated 23.09.2013 without hearing the same.
It is also evident from argument advanced by the parties that the O.P. Complainants were not served with the copy of the said petition and also they have no objection if the petition dated is heard in presence of both sides. In view of that we are of considered opinion that it will be expedient in the interest of justice to give an opportunity to the parties of being heard in respect of the petition filed by the O.P. Nos. 1 & 2 challenging the maintainability of the complaint case.
In the result, the Revisional Petitions succeed.
Hence, ordered that the Revisional Petitions are allowed on contest but without any order as to costs. The impugned order in the respective cases are set aside. The Ld. District Forum is directed to give opportunities to the parties to make submission on the point of maintainability of the petition of complaint subject to payment of cost of Rs.500/- by the O.P. Nos. 1 & 2 to the Complainant in each case and pass necessary orders according to law.
MEMBER PRESIDENT