State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sufia Khatun vs Mr. Al-Hajmd. Ali Azad on 11 July, 2017
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION WEST BENGAL 11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087 Miscellaneous Application No. MA/569/2017 In First Appeal No. A/455/2016 1. Sufia Khatun kol ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Mr. Al-HajMd. Ali Azad kol ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ISHAN CHANDRA DAS PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. TARAPADA GANGOPADHYAY MEMBER For the Appellant: Mr. Sibaji Sankar Dhar, Advocate For the Respondent: None appears Dated : 11 Jul 2017 Final Order / Judgement
HON'BLE JUSTICE ISHAN CHANDRA DAS, PRESIDENT This Miscellaneous Application being MA/569 of 2017 has been filed at the instance of the appellants wherein it has been pointed out certain typographical mistakes in the judgment of A/455 of 2016 delivered by us on 20/06/2017. From a perusal of the said judgment, it appears that the appeal was filed by the complainants of CDF/Unit-I/Case No. 41 of 2010 against the OPs/respondents (who are the developers herein), but inadvertently in place of appellants, it was shown as respondents and vice versa, throughout the judgment. Moreover, in page 3 of the judgment (on the 11th and 7th line from the bottom) it was written 'shortfall area of 85 sq. ft.' instead of 88 sq. ft. which are undoubtedly typographical mistakes remained in the said judgment through our oversight. Hence, in view of the prayer of the appellants in MA/569/2017, relying on a decision of the Hon'ble National Commission in Virupaxappa I- vs- Sr. Branch Manager, LIC of India, reported in 2014 (2) CPR 116 (NC), the typographical mistakes need be corrected, and in the judgment the word 'complainants' being appellants would be read as 'appellants' and 'OPs' being respondents would be read as 'respondents', and shortfall of area would be '88 sq. ft.' instead of '85 sq. ft., since we are convinced on perusal on the case record that through inadvertence such typographical mistakes occurred. The remaining part of the judgment of A/455/2016 dated 20.06.2017 remains unaltered. The Miscellaneous Application is thus allowed and disposed of to the extent as indicated above. This order is made part of the judgment dated 20/06/2017 in A/455/2016. [HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ISHAN CHANDRA DAS] PRESIDENT [HON'BLE MR. TARAPADA GANGOPADHYAY] MEMBER