National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Mitali Mondal @ Mithu Mondal & 3 Ors. vs Soumita Sarkar & 19 Ors. on 23 June, 2022
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 2829 OF 2015 (Against the Order dated 07/08/2015 in Appeal No. 1109/2013 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. MITALI MONDAL @ MITHU MONDAL & 3 ORS. W/O LATE BISWAJIT MONDAL, 358/C PURBASINTHCE ROAD P.S. DUM DUM, P.O. GHUGUDANGA, KOLKATA-700030 WEST BENGAL 2. MOHINI MONDAL D/O LATE BISWAJIT MONDAL 358/C PURBASINTHCE ROAD P.S. DUM DUM, P.O. GHUGUDANGA, KOLKATA-700030 WEST BENGAL 3. MASTER SUVOMOYMONDAL, MINOR S/O LATE BISWAJIT MONDAL, 358/C PURBASINTHCE ROAD P.S. DUM DUM, P.O. GHUGUDANGA, KOLKATA-700030 WEST BENGAL 4. SURAGINI MONDA,LMINOR D/O LATE BISWAJIT MONDAL 358/C PURBASINTHCE ROAD P.S. DUM DUM, P.O. GHUGUDANGA, KOLKATA-700030 WEST BENGAL ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. SOUMITA SARKAR & 19 ORS. W/O SRI ABANINDRA SARKAR, R/O 55/18, PURBASINTHEE ROAD, P.O. GHUGHUDANGA P.S. DUM DUM, KOLKATA-700030 WEST BENGAL 2. SRI MANTU MONDAL 100, PURBASINTHEE ROAD, P.O. GHUGHUDANGA P.S. DUM DUM, KOLKATA-700030 WEST BENGAL 3. SRI AJAY MONDAL S/O ANUKUL CHANDRA MONDAL 100, PURBASINTHEE ROAD, P.O. GHUGHUDANGA P.S. DUM DUM, KOLKATA-700030 WEST BENGAL 4. SRI VINOD MONDAL S/O LATE SHMBHU MONDAL 100, PURBASINTHEE ROAD, P.O. GHUGHUDANGA P.S. DUM DUM, KOLKATA-700030 WEST BENGAL 5. SMT. KALPANA MONDAL W/O LATE KANAI MONDAL 100, PURBASINTHEE ROAD, P.O. GHUGHUDANGA P.S. DUM DUM, KOLKATA-700030 WEST BENGAL 6. SMT.SHYAMALIBHASKAR W/O SRI BALAI BHASKAR 100, PURBASINTHEE ROAD, P.O. GHUGHUDANGA P.S. DUM DUM, KOLKATA-700030 WEST BENGAL 7. SRI SUBOL GAYEN FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN 58, BIDHAN COLONY, P.O. GHUGHUDANGA P.S. DUM DUM, KOLKATA-700030 WEST BENGAL 8. SRI AVI GAYEN S/O SRI SUBOLGAYAN 58, BIDHAN COLONY, P.O. GHUGHUDANGA P.S. DUM DUM, KOLKATA-700030 WEST BENGAL 9. SRI BABULAL GAYEN S/O SRI SUBOLGAYEN 58, BIDHAN COLONY, P.O. GHUGHUDANGA P.S. DUM DUM, KOLKATA-700030 WEST BENGAL 10. SMT.PROVA DAS D/O SRI SUBOLGAYEN 58, BIDHAN COLONY, P.O. GHUGHUDANGA P.S. DUM DUM, KOLKATA-700030 WEST BENGAL 11. SMT. PADMA SIDDHA W/O SRI ASHOK SIDDHA NEAR RAJCHANDRAPORE RLY, STATION, DISTRICT HOOGHLY WEST BENGAL 12. SMT. JYOTIKA DAS W/O SRI PRASANTA DAS R/O LAKSHMINARAYAN COLONY, GARIA ROAD, MATKAL DISTRICT: NORTH 24 PARGANAS WEST BENGAL 13. SMT. TUKU DAS W/O SRI SUKUMAR DAS R/O 58 BIDHAN COLONY, P.O. GHUGHUDANGA, P.S. DUM DUM, KOLKATA-700030 WEST BENGAL 14. SMT. REKHA SIKHARI, W/O SRI ANANDA SIKHARI, R/O BIDHAN COLONY, P.O. GHUGHUDANGA, P.S. DUM DUM, KOLKATA-700030 WEST BENGAL 15. SRI PRAHLAD MONDAL S/O LATE CHANDI MONDAL R/O CHOWDHURY PARA, MANIRAMPORE, P.S. BARRACKPORE, DISTRICT : NORTH 24 PARGANAS WEST BENGAL 16. SRI SANJIT MONDAL S/O LATE CHANDI MONDAL R/O CHOWDHURY PARA, MANIRAMPORE, P.S. BARRACKPORE, DISTRICT : NORTH 24 PARGANAS WEST BENGAL 17. SRI SHIBU MONDAL S/O SRI CHANDI MONDAL R/O CHOWDHURY PARA, MANIRAMPORE, P.S. BARRACKPORE, DISTRICT : NORTH 24 PARGANAS WEST BENGAL 18. SRI TAPAS MONDAL, S/O LATE CHANDI MONDAL R/O CHOWDHURY PARA, MANIRAMPORE, P.S. BARRACKPORE, DISTRICT : NORTH 24 PARGANAS WEST BENGAL 19. SMT. SHIBANI MONDAL D/O LATE CHANDI MONDAL R/O CHOWDHURY PARA, MANIRAMPORE, P.S. BARRACKPORE, DISTRICT : NORTH 24 PARGANAS WEST BENGAL 20. SMT MAMPI MONDAL D/O LATE CHANDI MONDAL R/O CHOWDHURY PARA, MANIRAMPORE, P.S. BARRACKPORE, DISTRICT : NORTH 24 PARGANAS WEST BENGAL ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. DINESH SINGH,PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KARUNA NAND BAJPAYEE,MEMBER For the Petitioner : NEMO For the Respondent : For the Respondents No. 1 : Mr. Abanindra Sarkar, Auth. Rep.
For the Respondents No. 2 to No. 20 : NEMO Dated : 23 Jun 2022 ORDER
1. This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Act 1986 in challenge to the Order dated 07.08.2015 of the State Commission in appeal no. 1109 of 2013 arising out of the Order dated 23.04.2013 of the District Commission in complaint no. 281 of 2012.
2. Repeatedly called out intermittently as well as at the end of the board.
No one appears for the petitioners.
The authorised representative of the respondent no. 1 is present.
No one appears for the respondents no. 2 to no. 20.
3. We have perused the material on record, including inter alia the Order dated 23.04.2013 of the District Commission, the impugned Order dated 07.08.2015 of the State Commission and the petition.
4. The complaint was made in 2012. The District Commission passed its Order in 2013. The State Commission passed its Order in 2015. The instant revision petition was filed before this Commission in 2015. And we are now in 2022. A reading of the proceedings before this Commission from 19.11.2015 onwards reflects unfavourably on the way and manner in which the petition has been procrastinated.
5. The matter relates to a developer - buyer dispute.
The District Commission made its appraisal of the case and for its reasons given partly allowed the complaint on contest. It directed the opposite parties no. 1 to no. 4 - developer (the petitioners herein) to pay Rs. 5,10,000/- with consolidated interest of Rs. 4,00,000/- i.e. total Rs. 9,10,000/- to the complainants along with compensation of Rs. 5,000/- and cost of litigation of Rs. 5,000/-. It also imposed Rs. 20,000/- as damages for 'unfair trade practice', to be deposited with the State Consumer Welfare Fund.
6. The opposite parties no. 1 to no. 4 - developer appealed before the State Commission. The State Commission made its independent appraisal and for its reasons recorded dismissed the appeal with cost of Rs. 5,000/-.
7. Concurrent findings have been returned by the District Commission and the State Commission. The Orders of the two fora are a matter of record. No useful purpose will be served by reproducing them here all over again. Suffice is to say that on the face of it we do not notice any jurisdictional error or material irregularity as may go to vitiate the findings, nor do we notice any miscarriage of justice having been occasioned. As such, we have no hesitation in dismissing this petition in default in the absence of the petitioners - developer today.
8. The revision petition no. 2829 of 2015 stands dismissed in default for lack of prosecution.
The Order of the District Commission, as upheld by the State Commission, shall be complied with forthwith, failing which the District Commission shall undertake execution, for 'enforcement' and for 'penalty', as per the law.
9. The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to the parties in the revision petition and to their learned counsel as well as to the District Commission immediately. The stenographer is also requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.
...................... DINESH SINGH PRESIDING MEMBER ......................J KARUNA NAND BAJPAYEE MEMBER