NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. NC/RP/1369/2025 (Against the Order dated 26th November 2025 in Appeal SC/19/CC/15/2022 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission West bengal)

WITH NC/IA/12972/2025 (EXEMPTION FOR FILING TRANSLATION DOCUMENTS)

NC/IA/12971/2025 (STAY)

M/S. ORCHID DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.

PRESENT ADDRESS - OFFICE AT 9/ 12, LAL BAZAR STREET3 NLFLOOR, BLOCK - C, KOLKATA , KOLKATA,WEST BENGAL.

.......Petitioner(s)

Versus BIRESH CHANDRA GHOSH S/o. Jagdish Chandra Ghosh PRESENT ADDRESS - 2A, UJJWA.L APARTMENT, ST ANNES SCHOOL LANERANCHI,JHARKHAND.

NILADRI SAHA S/o. Nitai Chandra Saha PRESENT ADDRESS - 123/26, 12 MULAJORE ROAD, P.O. KAKINARAP.S. JAGADDAL, DISTRICT NORTH 24 PARGANAS, WEST BENGAL , 24 PARAGANAS NORTH,WEST BENGAL.

SOMA SINHA D/o. Late Krishna Gopal Guha Majumdar PRESENT ADDRESS - KALPITA, 246 SULTANPUR, AIRPORT GATE NO.2P.O. RAJBARI, P.S DUM DUM, KOLKATA , KOLKATA,WEST BENGAL.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. P. SAHI , PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. BHARATKUMAR PANDYA , MEMBER FOR THE PETITIONER:

MR. VIKAS NAUTIYAL AND MR. ALOK MUKHOPADHYAY, ADVOCATES DATED: 12/01/2026

ORDER

1. Heard Mr. Nautiyal, learned counsel for the petitioner. The revision petition questions the correctness of the order dated 22.09.2025 passed by the SCDRC, West Bengal, whereby IA/229/2025 filed by the complainant for the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner during the pendency of the complaint has been allowed.

2. While advancing submissions, Mr. Nautiyal has pointed out that earlier in the proceedings two IAs, namely, IA/142/2023 and IA/316/2023 had been filed, the former by the complainant and the latter by the opposite party/ petitioner praying for appointment of Commissioners, one for local inspection and the other for an Engineer Commissioner. Learned counsel submits that both these applications were taken up simultaneously and through two separate orders dated 27.09.2023, both these applications have been rejected.

3. The contention is that once the State Commission had chosen to reject the applications for appointment of Local Commissioner or an Engineer Commissioner, one at the instance of the complainant and the other at the instance of the petitioner/ opposite party, then the State Commission could not have allowed the application giving rise to the impugned order. He submits that the State Commission has adopted a wrong and inconsistent procedure and hence the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the revision petition deserves to be allowed.

4. We have entertained this revision petition in terms of Section 58 (1) (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 which has been filed against an interlocutory order in a pending complaint before the State Commission.

5. The submission of the learned counsel as noted above also is to the effect that the allowing of such an application was not necessary, in as much as, evidence was to be entertained and such an issue as alleged in the application was subject to evidence. The State Commission therefore without allowing the evidence to proceed has unnecessarily at the interim stage passed an order which has impeded the hearing of the complaint and therefore is a serious irregularity.

6. In order to appreciate the arguments of Mr. Nautiyal, we may first refer to the two earlier applications filed that were disposed off on 27.09.2023 by two separate orders that have been filed on record. IA/142/2023 had been filed by the complainants alleging that after deed of conveyance was executed, upon entering possession of their respective units, the complainants found some structural defects such as cracked walls, faulty wooden flooring, dampening and seepage of the construction, etc. It is for the said reason that the said application was filed. The State Commission rightly observed that no evidence on affidavit had been filed and therefore it was not at all necessary to consider the appointment of any Advocate Commissioner at that stage. Sim