State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Indrajit Dutta vs Samriddhi Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Others on 13 December, 2013
Daily Order
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION WEST BENGAL 11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087 CC NO. 20 Of 2012 Indrajit Dutta Vs. Samriddhi Developers Pvt. Ltd. and Others BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KALIDAS MUKHERJEE PRESIDENT HON'BLE MRS. MRIDULA ROY MEMBER For the Complainant: Mr. Anshuman Gupta,Ms. Anuva Awasthi, Advocate For the Opp. Party: Mr. Subhadeep Ghosh., Advocate Dated : 13 Dec 2013 ORDER
ORDER NO. 15 DT. 13.12.13
MRS. M.ROY, MEMBER
MA-460/2013 The Ops have filed the instant Misc. Application praying for recalling of the order dt. 23.4.2013 passed by this Commission in this case, stating that 23.4.2013 was fixed for filing written version by the Ops, but due to mis-posting of the date in the diary of the Ld. Advocate, they could not appear before this Commission and submit the written version as well.
On perusal of the record it appears that on 21.12.2012, vide Order No. 9, this Commission fixed 19.2.2013 for filing written version by the Ops. On 19.2.2013 in presence of both sides on the prayer of the Ops 23.4.2013 was fixed for filing written version by the Ops. Again on 23.4.2013, vide Order No. 11, this Commission fixed 25.6.2013 for filing evidence on affidavit by the complainant observing that none appeared on behalf of the Ops and no written version was filed. However, on 9.9.2013 the complainant filed the evidence on affidavit.
The complainant has filed the instant case alleging deficiency on the part of the Ops in providing service for non-delivery of the possession of a flat as well as non-execution and registration of the deed of conveyance in favour of him in respect of the said flat for purchase of which he entered into an agreement for sale with the OP No. 1 at a consideration of Rs. 30,25,000/-, which he claimed to have paid in full.
Now, before going into the merits we are to decide first whether this Commission has the power to review its own order recalling the same. To determine this issue we rely upon the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (201) 9 Supreme Court Cases 541 - [Rajeev Hitendra Pathak and Others Vs. Achyut Kashinath Karekar and another] wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to hold that the District Forums and State Commissions have not been given any power to set aside ex parte orders or power of review and powers which have not been expressly given by statute cannot be exercised. Further, we also rely upon the decision of the Hon'ble National Commission reported in 2011 (4) CPR 354 (NC) - [United India Insurance Co. Ltd. through Manager, Regional Office-I Vs. Syed Manzarul Hassan & Ors] wherein the Hon'ble Commission was also pleased to hold that the State Commissions have no power to review its own order.
In view of those decisions we dismiss the Misc. Application bearing No. MA-460/2013 since no power has been expressly conferred on the State Commission to review its own order.
Fix 11.3.2014 for filing questionnaire by the Ops.
[HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KALIDAS MUKHERJEE] PRESIDENT [HON'BLE MRS. MRIDULA ROY] MEMBER