PRABIR CHATTERJEE Vs. SUNIRMAL CHAKRABORTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution is directed against the order dated 13.01.2009 passed by the learned State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, West Bengal in Appeal No. FA 08/212 of 2008 arising out of order dated 05.03.2004 in DF Case No. 129/2003 passed by the learned District Forum at Alipore, South 24-Parganas. The petitioner contends that in course of their usual business of selling flats he made an agreement on 27.12.1993 with the opposite party for allotment of a flat at Diamond Tower, Diamond Harbour Road, Joka, South 24-Parganas. But he has not delivered the flat within the stipulated time for which the opposite party respondent filed a complaint before the learned District Redressal Forum at Alipore. The said proceeding was finally dismissed by the learned District Consumer Forum on 05.03.2004 as not maintainable as barred by limitation. After four years the opposite party filed an appeal on 04.06.2008 being No. SC/A/212/2008 before the learned State Commission together with an application under section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act. The learned State Consumer Forum decided the matter ex parte on 12.01.2009 and being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with such order the petitioner has preferred this revisional application contending, inter alia, that the learned State Commission ought to have entertained and allowed his application under section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is also contended that the learned State Commission has failed to consider that the petitioner was unable to register the flat of the opposite party due to non-payment of full consideration amount for the said flat. As such the said order of the learned State Commission is liable to be quashed or set aside.

(2.) The opposite party, however, has opposed the move and contended, inter alia, that the remedy sought for is not available under the revisional jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court under Article 227 of the Constitution and as such there is no merit in this revisional application which should be dismissed.

(3.) It is argued on behalf of the learned lawyer for the petitioner that in fact the date 13.01.2009 was fixed for consideration of the application for condonation of delay made by the appellant therein under section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act. But by the impugned order the learned State Commission has erroneously disposed of the appeal itself which is not sustainable in law. In fact, no reason has been assigned or no opportunity has been given to the appellant to explain the delay of 1552 days in preferring the appeal. He has relied upon and referred to the decision, [Kandimalla Raghavaian & Company vs. National Insurance Company & Anr., 2009 7 SCC 768]. The views of the Hon'ble Apex Court on the aforesaid point is quoted below: