At, West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
By, THE HONOURABLE MRS. S. MAJUMDER
By, MEMBER & THE HONOURABLE MR. S. COARI
For the Appellants: N.R. Mukherjee, Advocate. For the Respondents: Santa Ramchand, Anjan Dutta, Advocates.
S. Coari, Member:
1. The present appeal has been directed at the instance of Complainants/Appellants against the Order No. 6 dated 18.5.2010 passed by learned D.C.D.R.F. Unit-I in CDF/Unit-I/Case No. 91/2010 wherein the learned District Forum while disposing of an interim application in contested form disposed of the complaint case itself with the directions upon the Complainants to affect deposit stamp on the agreement dated 24.4.2005 positively within one month thereof and O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 were directed to provide a covered car parking space to the Complainants within the premises in question within one month thereof and in default the O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 were directed to refund Rs. 1,00,000 along with an uncovered car parking space to the Complainants. The Complainants were also awarded litigation cost of Rs. 10,000 together with a direction upon the Complainants to vacate car parking space No. 3 within one month thereof to O.P. Nos. 3 and 4. The Appellants-Complainants being aggrieved and dissatisfied with such finding of learned District Forum has preferred the present appeal. The Complainants filed an interim application with the prayer to restrain the O.Ps and their men from interfering and disturbing the personal possession of the Complainants in respect of the car parking space No. 3 and also for peaceful enjoyment of ingress and egress thereto. The learned District Forum on couple of dates extended interim injunction in favour of the Complainants-Appellants and when the O.Ps entered appearance and filing Written Version/Objection to the interim application disposed of the consumer complaint itself in the manner as discussed above. The only moot question revolves round as to whether the learned District Forum was justified in disposing of the complaint in the manner as mentioned above.
Decision with reason
2. At the time of hearing it has been submitted on behalf of the Complainants-Appellants that the Appellants are extremely aggrieved with the directions of the learned District Forum to the extent that the Complainants were directed to vacate the car parking space No. 3 in favour of O.P. Nos. 3 and 4 within one month from the date thereof. According to the learned Advocate once the Complainants vacate the car parking space in favour of O.P. Nos. 3 and 4 they will never be accommodated with alternative car parking space either covered or uncovered which will jeopardize the entire effort of the Complainants seeking redressal before the Consumer Forum nor there will be any certainty that they will be adequately compensated at the instance of the O.P.-Respondents. While concluding her submission the learned Advocate for the Appellants have urged before us that unless and until the interest of the Appellants/Complainants are protected the very purpose of filing the petition of complaint would be infructuous and according to learned Advocate considering this aspects of the matter the direction upon the Complainants as mentioned above in respect of the flat and space No. 3 should be set aside.
3. We have duly considered the submission so put forward on behalf of the Appellants and have gone through the materials on record, pleadings of the party and the impugned order and find that in this case the Appellants is aggrieved by the portion of the impugned order in which the learned District Forum has directed the Appellants to vacate car parking space No. 3 in favour of O.P. Nos. 3 and 4. In this connection we have also taken note of the submission put forward by the learned Advocate for the Respondents. According to who in this case the O.P.– respondents have raised a valid and bona fide plea to the effect that the agreement in question is not adequately stamped and unless and until the same is impounded there is no point in pursuing the litigation pending before the learned District Forum. We also find much substance in the submission put forward on behalf of the Respondents to the effect that the learned District Forum has utterly misread the provision of Consumer Protection Act and disposed of the complaint case without giving the opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence in respect of their cases. It was not proper on behalf of the learned District Forum to dispose of the complaint itself while disposing of the interlocutory petition like that of a interim matter. It was also submitted on behalf of the Respondents that this is a fit case for remand with the direction to impound the agreement in question and to dispose of the petition of complaint after affording opportunities to the parties in respect of their respective cases.
4. In view of above discussions we are of the considered opinion that it was not proper on the part of the learned District Forum to dispose of the complaint petition itself while disposing of an interim matter and accordingly we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order is not sustainable under the law and the same is liable to be set aside.
That the appeal succeeds and the impugned order is set aside and the case be sent back on remand to the learned District Forum with a r
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
equest to complete the procedure of impounding first and to dispose of the petition of complaint after giving opportunities to the parties to adduce evidence in respect of their respective cases. However, in this connection we also direct that the Complainants-Petitioners possession in respect of car parking space No. 3 need not be disturbed till the disposal of the case after remand. 6. This judgment will govern the fate of case No. FA/292/2010 (being a cross-appeal) which arises out of the same judgment and in which parties are same. Appeal allowed.