National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Om Tara Maa Construction & 2 Ors. vs Alaka Roy on 13 April, 2015
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI EXECUTION REVISION PETITION NO. 85 OF 2014 (Against the Order dated 25/09/2014 in Appeal No. 965/2014 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. OM TARA MAA CONSTRUCTION & 2 ORS. BLOCK-E-6 TAGORE PARK, MAIN ROAD,P.O TILJALA, P.S KASBA, KOLKATA - 700 039 W.B 2. SRI SANTANU KANJILAL, S/O SHRI GOURANGA KANJILAL, PARTNER, OM TARA MAA CONSTRUCTIION, R/O 149F, PICNIC GARDEN ROAD, P.O & P.S TILJALA KOLKATA - 700 039 W.B 3. SRI SANJIB DAS, S/O LATE SHRI SANKAR CHANDRA DAS, PARTNER OM TARA MAA CONSTRUCTIION, R/O 149F, PICNIC GARDEN ROAD, P.O & P.S TILJALA KOLKATA - 700 039 W.B ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. ALAKA ROY W/O SHRI TAPAN KUMAR ROY, E/2 TAGORE PARK, P.O TILJALA .P.S KASBA, KOLKATA - 700 039 W.B ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE, PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MRS. REKHA GUPTA, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Ms. Mamta Tiwari, Advocate with Mr.Shyam Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr.S.K.Ghosh, Advocate Dated : 13 Apr 2015 ORDER This revision petition is directed against the order of West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata (in short, "State Commission") dated 25.9.2014 whereby State Commission dismissed the appeal No.965 of 2014 preferred by the petitioner/opposite party against the order of the District Forum u/s 27A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (short, 'Act').
2. Briefly put facts relevant for the disposal of revision petition are that the Consumer Complaint No.131 of 2011 filed by the respondent/complainant before the District Forum, South 24, Paraganas, Judges Court, Alipur was allowed with the following directions :-
"The Ops are directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards damage for causing delay in respect of delivery of possession, a sum of Rs.9,000/- towards house rent for the period from April to June, a sum of Rs.1 lakh for compensation and a sum of Rs.3.50 lakhs towards cost and expenses of proposed construction and cost of Rs.2,000/-, totaling Rs.4,66,000/- within one month from the date, failing which the said amount shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of default till realization.
The Ops are also directed to hand over KMC tax clearance certificate and completion certificate and copy of plan and all other necessary papers for mutation within one month from this date.
The complainant shall be at liberty to put the decree into execution in accordance with law for non-compliance of the order after the time giving for compliance. Let a plain copy of the judgment be supplied to the parties free of cost."
3. The above noted order has attained finality. As the petitioner opposite party failed to provide completion certificate, the complainant decree holder applied for execution of above noted order. The proceedings under section 27 of the Act were initiated against the complainant and warrant of arrest was directed to be issued. Pursuant to the warrant of arrest, the petitioner opposite party was arrested and detained. The petitioner preferred an appeal against his detention under section 27A of the Act which was dismissed by the State Commission. This led to the filing of the revision petition. During the pendency of the revision petition, an interim order was passed directing immediate release of petitioner no.2 subject to his depositing Rs.5.00 lacs with the District Forum concerned. The interim order has been complied with and the petitioner no.2 has been released on bail.
4. Learned Ms.Mamta Tiwari, Advocate for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order of the State Commission as well as District Forum alleging that they have failed to appreciate that petitioner/opposite party had completed the formalities of getting completion certificate and applied for the same but the application was rejected. Appeal against the aforesaid order is pending before Municipal Building Tribunal, Kolkata. It is further contended that the foras below ought to have considered that petitioner has done what ever, he could do for obtaining completion certificate and they should have waited till disposal of the appeal before passing adverse order against the petitioner.
5. In order to appreciate the contention of the petitioner, it is necessary to have a look on the order of the District Forum which has been confirmed in appeal u/s 27A of the Act by the State Commission vide its impugned order. Relevant portion of the order of the District Forum is reproduced as under :-
"At this stage, it appears that no case is pending before the Building Tribunal and as such the JDRs. are directed to comply with the order by supplying the completion certificate by the date fixed in default they will have to face the sentence proceedings.
In view of the above, fix 4.8.2014 for supply of completion certificate in default to face sentence proceedings. The JDR are directed to appear personally on the date fixed. The DHr is given liberty to file necessary paper from the authority concerned regarding requirement of papers for mutation on the date fixed."
6. On reading of the above, it is clear that the District Forum has ordered that in the event of failure / default on the part of the opposite party to supply completion certificate to the respondent/complainant, he would face sentence proceedings u/s 27A of the Act. On our query, learned counsel for the petitioner has categorically stated that till date no conviction order u/s 27A of the Act has been passed, meaning thereby, even if the petitioner has failed to supply completion certificate in terms of the order, the District Forum will proceed against the petitioner u/s 27A of the Act and in the said proceedings, the petitioner shall get an opportunity to defend himself. Therefore, in our view, the revision petition is pre mature and it appears to have been filed with a view to avoid the execution proceedings.
7. In view of the discussion above, we do not find merit in the revision petition. It is accordingly dismissed. It is clarified that till the disposal of proceedings under section 27A of the Act, the petitioner shall continue to remain on bail. Amount of Rs.5.00 lacs deposited pursuant to the interim direction dated 24.12.2014 shall not be released till the disposal of proceedings under section 27A of the Act.
8. The District Forum is requested to dispose of the proceedings under section 27A of the Act within six months.
......................J AJIT BHARIHOKE PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... REKHA GUPTA MEMBER