Full Judgment
Kalidas Mukherjee, President:
This revisional application is directed against the order no.8 dated 22/04/13 passed by Learned District Forum, Alipore, South 24-Parganas in case no.42 of 2013 rejecting thereby the petition filed by the OPs on the ground of maintainability of the complaint case.
The Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner has submitted that on the self-same prayer the matter is pending before the Authorized Officer under the West Bengal (Regulation of Promotion of Construction and Transfer by Promoters) Act, 1993. It is submitted that the said Act of 1993 is also a special Act and the complainant having approached the Authorised Officer under the said Act of 1993, the instant complaint under the C. P. Act is not maintainable. The Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner herein has submitted that if the complainant elects one Forum he cannot subsequently approach the other Forum for the same remedy. In this connection the Learned Counsel has referred to the decision of the Hon'ble National Commission reported in 2013 (2) CPR 756 (NC) [DLF Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Mridul Estate (Pvt.) Ltd. and Ors.] on the point of arbitration proceeding vis-à-vis the pendency of the complaint case with the Consumer Forum.
The Learned Counsel for the OP herein has referred to the provision contained in Rule-7 under the said Act of 1993 wherein it has been laid down that the applicant has to apply in Form-G before the Authorised Officer. It is submitted that the Housing Department vide letter dated 25/08/11 requested the complainant to submit the complaint in prescribed Form-G. It is submitted that the complainant did not file any complaint with the Authorised Officer under the Act of 1993 in the prescribed Form-G. It is contended that the complainant did not want to invoke the provisions contained in the said Act of 1993 and chose to file complaint before the Learned District Forum under the C.P. Act. It is contended that no jurisdictional error or material irregularity was committed by the Learned District Forum and there is no ground to interfere with the impugned order in the instant revisional application. It is submitted that the West Bengal (Regulation of Promotion of Construction and Transfer by Promoters) Act, 1993 was enacted with the object of imposing punishment on the promoters if the business is carried on without licence. It is submitted that the C.P. Act, 1986 was enacted with the object of providing speedy justice and in this connection the Learned Counsel has referred to Section-3 of the C.P. Act, which according to the Learned Counsel, has a wider connotation. It is contended that the relief sought for is not self-same, but different one.
We have heard the submission made by both sides. Firstly, it appears from the letter dated 25/08/11 that the complainant was requested by the Housing Department, Government of West Bengal to submit the complaint in the prescribed Form-G. Since the complainant did not file any such complaint under Form-G and thus the provisions of the said Act of 1993 was not invoked at the instance of the complainant. From the impugned order it appears that the complainant being an employee of the Education Department filed an application in his own Department for early registration of the deed and the Department concerned forwarded it to the Housing Department for necessary action. It does not thereby mean that the complainant approached the Housing Department under the Act of 1993 for relief.
Secondly, it appears that the instant petition of complaint was filed by the complainant praying for direction upon the OPs to handover the completion certificate and to execute and register the deed of conveyance in favour of the complainant; to pay compensation of Rs.1 lakh so that the complainant may not suffer the hike in price of registration and valuation due to laches and fault of the OPs; to pay compensation of Rs.1 lakh for unfair trade practice, mental agony and harassment and litigation cost of Rs.20,000/-. Section-3 of the C. P. Act is also significant and plays a vital role while adjudicating the disputes under the C. P. Act. Having heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the papers on record, we are of the view that the Learned District Forum did not commit any illegality or material irregularity in passing the impugned order. There is no ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Learned District Forum.
The revisional application fails and the same stands dismissed.