PRABIR KUMAR CHATTERJEE Vs. M/S. MIRA CONSTRUCTION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition under Sec. 21(1) (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the 'Act') assails the interim order dtd. 12/7/2019 in First Appeal No. A/655/2018 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengal, Kolkata (in short, the 'State Commission') arising out of order dtd. 27/10/2016 in Consumer Complaint No. 399 of 2012 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata -1 (North), (in short, the 'District Forum').

(2.) The facts, in brief, according to the revision petitioner, are that the complainant along with other co-owners of premises in No. 26/1B, Sabji Bagan Lane, P.S. Chetla, Kolkota 700027 entered into a Development Agreement dtd. 14/6/2006 with respondent no. 1 represented by its partners, respondents 2 and 3. Vide this Agreement, petitioner and his brother, Subir Kumar Chatterjee, were jointly entitled to 300 sq ft super built up area on the first floor of the premises. The respondents failed to hand over the said premises, despite receipt of a letter dtd. 22/6/2011 issued by the petitioner. Possession was, however, handed over to other purchasers in the building. The petitioners were compelled to file a complaint before the District Forum. Despite notices, the respondent failed to file his written version despite entering appearance through an advocate. Petitioner was allowed to amend his complaint on 12/6/2014. Respondent failed to file additional written version even after notice dtd. 31/7/2014. Vide order dtd. 27/10/2016 the District Forum allowed the complaint, on contest, with costs and the respondents were directed to provide a flat measuring 300 sq ft on the first floor of the said building within 30 days. They were also directed, jointly and severally, to pay Rs.70,000.00 as compensation along with litigation cost of Rs.10,000.00, failing which petitioners were liable to get interest @ 10% p.a. till realization. The State Commission, in appeal filed by the respondent, condoned the delay of 594 days as per record relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag Vs. Mst. Katiji and Ors, AIR 1987 SC 1353 on the ground that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. This order is challenged before this Commission by way of the instant revision petition.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. When the matter was listed for final arguments on 9/5/2023, the learned counsel for the respondents present initially submitted that he was to receive instructions in the matter. He thereafter left the court room without intimation. He is therefore placed ex parte.