ANJALI GUPTA Vs. ARUP KUMAR SENGUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In a consumer complaint bearing no. 19/S/2006 filed by the respondents before the District Forum, the petitioner/OP raised an objection against the complaint on the point of its maintainability through an application dated 07.06.2006 submitted to the District Forum. District Forum rejected the application and held that the consumer complaint is quite maintainable. On a subsequent appeal before the State Commission, the matter was remitted back to the District Forum by the State Commission with a direction to dispose of the application on the point of maintainability after hearing both the sides. Accordingly, the matter was heard by the District Forum on 21.05.2010 and after hearing, the District Forum rejected the contention in respect of maintainability raised by the petitioner/OP on contest. The contention raised by the petitioner was two-fold, firstly that the Deed of Agreement entered into between the parties being an unregistered one and not properly stamped, no reliance should be placed on it, the same being not admissible in evidence and secondly, that the District Forum lacked jurisdiction to entertain a dispute of this nature inasmuch as the same admittedly falls under the provisions of West Bengal Building (Regulation and Promotion Act) 1993. The District Forum while disposing of the maintainability application observed that the Forum had adequate jurisdiction to entertain and look into the controversy between the parties and that the point of unregistered Deed of Agreement and/or subsequent cancellation of the same can only be adjudicated through regular trial including evidence led on those points by both the sides and accordingly dismissed the application on the point of maintainability raised by the petitioner/OP. Aggrieved by this order dated 21.05.2010, the petitioner/OP carried the same in a revision petition before the State Commission which did not find favour of the State Commission and was dismissed by it through its impugned order dated 14.09.2010. It is against this order of the State Commission that the present revision petition has been filed challenging the same. While dismissing the revision petition of the petitioner/OP, the State Commission has recorded the following reasons in favour of the impugned order:-

(2.) We agree with the view taken by the State Commission. The short issue involved in the revision petition regarding maintainability of the consumer complaint before the Fora below having been suitably and adequately dealt with by the Fora below by their concurrent orders rejecting the contentions of the petitioner, we do not find any justification or good ground to interfere with the impugned order. The revision petition, therefore, stands dismissed and the impugned order of the State Commission is confirmed. Since it is an old pending consumer dispute filed in the year 2006, th -parties are directed to appear before the District Forum on 19.05.2011 and the District Forum is hereby directed to dispose of the complaint expeditiously as per the directions already given in the impugned order dated 14.09.2010 of the State Commission.