Chabi Das vs. Ranjit Kr. Chowdhury & Ors dated 2012-01-04
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
REVISION PETITION NO. 3279 OF 2011
[Against the order dated 11.08.2011 in Appeal No. 373/2010 of the
West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata]
S/o Mr. Anil Das
66/H/4, Tiljala Masjid Bari Bye Lane
Police Station Tiljala
Kolkata-700039, West Bengal … Petitioner
1. Ranjit Kr. Chowdhury
S/o Ashok Kr. Chowdhury
Police Station Tiljala
Kolkata-700039, West Bengal
2. Ms. Priyabal Paul
W/o Sri Kartick Chandra Paul
517, Laskar Hut Road
Police Station Tiljala
Kolkata-700039, West Bengal … Respondent
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.C. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER
HON’BLE MR. S.K. NAIK, MEMBER
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sukalyan Sarkar, Advocate
Pronounced on : 4th January, 2012
O R D E R
PER S.K. NAIK, MEMBER
1. This revision petition has been filed by Mr. Chabi Das (the developer/builder), who was opposite party no.1 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Alipore, Kolkata (District Forum for short), aimed at challenging the order dated 11th of August, 2011 passed by the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata (State Commission for short), dismissing his appeal with a cost of Rs.1000/-. The appeal had been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 25th of January, 2010 of the District Forum, vide which the petitioner has been directed to refund a sum of Rs.3,29,000/- to the respondent no.1/complainant within one month from the date of the order together with interest @ 10% per annum w.e.f. 1st of December, 2005 and also to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation, besides Rs.1000/- towards the cost of litigation.
2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner/developer had entered into an agreement for sale of a flat to be constructed by him to the respondent no.1/complainant for a cost of Rs.3,60,000/-. He had already received a sum of Rs.3,30,000/- and on account of the non-payment of the balance amount of Rs.30,000/-, the petitioner not only revoked the sale agreement but also sold the said flat to a third party. Obviously, being aggrieved the respondent no.1/complainant approached the District Forum, who, as stated above, not only directed the petitioner to refund the amount already paid by the complainant with interest but also awarded a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for the injustice and deficiency perpetrated by the petitioner. Aggrieved with the said decision of the District Forum, the petitioner had filed an appeal before the State Commission, which too, as stated above, has been dismissed with a cost of Rs.1000/-.
3. We are surprised that the petitioner/builder is yet not convinced with the justice imparted by the two fora below and has ventured to file this revision petition.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner on admission of this revision petition.
5. The only ground advanced by the learned counsel is that the complainant had not taken any steps to pay the balance consideration within the stipulated period and further that the District Forum had decided the matter in their absence, which has resulted in the miscarriage of justice. We summarily reject this argument for the simple reason that the petitioner having received Rs.3,30,000/- against a total consideration of Rs.3,60,000/- could not be expected to say that the complainant was at fault for not paying the balance amount of Rs.30,000/- and take possession of the flat. Learned counsel has failed to produce any communication/letter addressed by him to the complainant demanding the payment of the balance amount of Rs.30,000/- or having issued any notice stating therein that failure of the payment of Rs.30,000/- will entail cancellation. It is clear from the orders of the fora below that notice on the complaint had been duly served on the opposite parties but for reasons, which is now clear as the petitioner/builder had already sold out the flat, they did not appear before the District Forum deliberately having disposed of the flat meant for the complainant to a third party. It is not difficult to guess as to why the petitioner was in such great hurry to dispose of the flat constructed on the money received from the complainant and greed appears to be the main motive since price of real estate escalate very fast.
6. In this case, both the fora below have delivered a concurrent finding and in that background our role in exercise of Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is very limited. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta v. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [II (2010) CPJ 19 (SC)], on this subject has 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 exercised 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 Courts 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” .
7. Respectfully, drawing support from the observation of the Hon’ble Apex Court as above, we do not find that there is any prima facie jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice in the impugned order, warranting our interference. On the contrary, any interference may result in miscarriage of justice to the complainant.
8. The revision petition, accordingly, is dismissed at the stage of admission itself with a cost of Rs.5000/- to be deposited by the petitioner/developer in the legal aid account of this Commission within a period of four weeks.
( R. C. JAIN, J. )