National Consumer Disputes Redressal
M/S. Kamala Construction Pvt. Ltd. & 2 ... vs Soumen Saha on 20 October, 2023
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 1688 OF 2019 (Against the Order dated 25/04/2019 in Appeal No. 701/2015 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. M/S. KAMALA CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. & 2 ORS. THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE GOKULNAGAR, RABINDRANATH TAGORE ROAD, P.O. PANIHATI P.S. KHARDAHA, DISTRICT-NORTH 24 PARGANAS WEST BENGAL ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. SOUMEN SAHA S/O. SH. NRIPENDRA LAL SAHA, R/O. 7, RANI RASHMONI NAGAR, P.O. SODEPUR, P.S. KARDAHA, DISTRICT-NORTH 24 PARGANAS, KOLKATA-700100 WEST BENGAL ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. BINOY KUMAR,PRESIDING MEMBER
FOR THE PETITIONER : APPEARED AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENTS
FOR PETITIONER : MR. PAWAN KUMAR RAY, ADVOCATE
MS. KIRTIKA GUPTA, ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT : APPEARED AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENTS
FOR RESPONDENT : MR. SANJOY KUMAR GHOSH, ADVOCATE
MS. RUPALI S. GHOSH, ADVOCATE
Dated : 20 October 2023 ORDER
ORDER
Aggrieved by the concurrent findings and Orders passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, North 24 Pgs., Barasat (for short, the District Forum) and the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal, Kolkata (for short, the State Commission), the Opposite Parties - M/s. Kamala Construction Pvt. Ltd. & its Directors filed the present Revision Petition No. 1688 of 2019 under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, the Act). The Complaint filed by the Complainant (Respondent herein) in District Forum was allowed and the Opposite Parties were directed to deliver the peaceful vacant possession of the disputable flat and the garage and to execute and register the proper deed of conveyance in respect of the flat in question and garage. They were further directed to hand over the possession and completion certificate. The Opposite Parties were also directed to pay Rs. 1,05,000/- in total as compensation to the Complainant, failing which Rs. 100/- per day shall have to be paid.
Aggrieved by this Order dated 28.05.2015 of the District Forum, the Opposite Parties filed Appeal before the State Commission, which, vide its Order dated 25.04.2019, disposed of the Appeal by modifying the Order of the District Forum to the extent the Opposite Parties shall have no obligation to pay Rs. 100/- per day as punitive damages..
As the District Forum and the State Commission have comprehensively addressed the facts of the case, which led to filing of the Complaint and passing of the Orders, I do not find it relevant to reiterate the same, when the findings of both the fora are concurrent on facts.
I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and considered their submissions.
The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that there is a balance amount of Rs. 3,04,400/- to be paid by the Respondent / Complainant, which has not been paid. The Petitioner was ready to give possession of the Unit way back in 2014 and the same has also been recorded in the Order of the District Forum. It is a fact that certain extra work has been done based on verbal instruction and there was increase in area of the Unit for which the Complainant has to make additional payment.
The learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that so far despite Order of the District Forum and the State Commission, possession has not been given and no registration of Sale Deed done. The Respondent is ready to make payment of the balance amount, subject to the possession and registration of the Unit being done. The ground of extra work and area were not taken up in the District Forum and no evidence has been filed regarding the extra work done in the Unit in question.
I have gone through the submissions and after careful consideration, I do not find any reason to differ from the Order of the State Commission, which is in order. The Respondent / Complainant has to pay the balance amount due to the Petitioner, who is duty bound to get the conveyance deed registered in favour of the Complainant.
In view of the concurrent findings, I would like to cite the following Orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this regard:
Rajiv Shukla v. Gold Rush Sales & Services Ltd., (2022) 9 SCC 31 decided on 08.09.2022, wherein it was held as under:
"In exercising of revisional jurisdiction the National Commission has no jurisdiction to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the District Forum and the State Commission which are on appreciation of evidence on record. Therefore, while passing the impugned judgment and order [Goldrush Sales and Services Ltd. v. Rajiv Shukla, 2016 SCC OnLine NCDRC 702] the National Commission has acted beyond the scope and ambit of the revisional jurisdiction conferred under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act.
Narendran Sons v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1760 decided on 07.03.2022, wherein it was held as under:
"The NCDRC could interfere with the order of the State Commission if it finds that the State Commission has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law or has failed to exercise its jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. However, the order of NCDRC does not show that any of the parameters contemplated under Section 21 of the Act were satisfied by NCDRC to exercise its revisional jurisdiction to set aside the order passed by the State Commission. The NCDRC has exercised a jurisdiction examining the question of fact again as a court of appeal, which was not the jurisdiction vested in it"
Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2011) 11 SCC 269 decided on 18.03.2011, wherein it was held as under:
"23. Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from section 21(b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercise only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view than what was taken by the two Forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the court below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken, by setting aside the concurrent findings of two fora."
Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel and Ors Vs. H & R Johnson (India) Ltd. and Ors. ( 2016 8 SCC 286) decided on 02.08.2016, wherein it was held as under:
"23. The National Commission has to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it only if the State Commission or the District Forum has failed to exercise their jurisdiction or exercised when the same was not vested in their or exceeded their jurisdiction by acting illegally or with material irregularity. In the instant case, the National Commission has illegally or with material irregularity. In the instant case, the National Commission has certainly exceeded its jurisdiction by setting aside the concurrent finding of fact recorded in the order passed by the State Commission which is based upon valid and cogent reason"
Sunil Kumar Maity v. SBI, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 77 decided on 21.01.2022 , wherein it was held as under:
"9. It is needless to say that the revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the said Act is extremely limited. It should be exercised only in case as contemplated within the parameters specified in the said provision, namely when it appears to the National Commission that the State Commission had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. In the instant case, the National Commission itself had exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by calling for the report from the respondent-Bank and solely relying upon such report, had come to the conclusion that the two fora below had erred in not undertaking the requisite in-depth appraisal of the case that was required. ....."
It is a fact that some amount is due to be paid by the Respondent / Complainant to the Petitioner / Builder. There has been also some delay on the part of the Petitioner in handing over the possession of the Unit. The State Commission and the District Forum have given well-reasoned Order and therefore, the question of interference in the order does not arise. No new facts or question of law has been pointed out. I see no illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the Order of the State Commission and the District Forum.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, the Revision Petition is dismissed and the Order of the State Commission is upheld.
............................ BINOY KUMAR PRESIDING MEMBER