A court-appointed local investigation is justified and essential for the proper adjudication of consumer complaints when there are disputed triable issues regarding physical specifications and contractual compliance of property delivery.

ORDER

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIBHAS RANJAN DE, PRESIDENT

1. This Revision Petition is directed against the impugned Order dt.22.07.2024, emanated from the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, North 24 Parganas (Barasat) (hereinafter referred to as Jurisdictional DCDRC), the operative portion whereof is reproduced herein below :

“Order No.18

Dated 22.07.2024

Today is fixed for hearing the M.A. Case No.167/2023 filed by the Complainant.

Ld. Advocate for the Complainant is present. Petition dated 05.09.2023 which registered as M.A. 167/2023 is taken up for hearing. Heard Ld. Advocate for the Complainant.

Ld. Advocate for the Complainant prayed for local investigation over the disputed property in respect of certain points.

Perused the points which have mentioned in the petition.

Considering the entire matter we think that the petition should be allowed for the ends of justice.

Hence, the petition for local investigation is allowed.

Mr. Snehasish Chatterjee be appointed for the purpose of aforesaid investigation.

Fees for the local investigation is assessed to Rs.5,000/- (five thousand).

Complainant is directed to pay the aforesaid fee directly to Mr. Chatterjee.

To 29.08.2024 for filing writ by the Complainant.”

2. The instant Revision Application was disposed of by this Commission on 17.01.2025 i.e., on the date of admission whereby set aside the order impugned.

3. The aforesaid order passed by this Commission was assailed before the Hon’ble High Court in C.O. No.1634 of 2025 wherein Hon’ble High Court chose the track of the principle of audi alteram partem and set aside the order of this Commission passed on 17.01.2025, with a request to this Commission to dispose of the instant revision application after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties. Accordingly, we have heard both the parties to this Revision Application.

4. Mr. Rajesh Biswas, Ld. Counsel, appearing on behalf of the Revisionist has drawn our attention to the Consumer Complaint with connected documents and submits that the points for inspection are not at all in consonance with the prayers of the consumer complaint. Moreover, it is submitted that the Revisionist/Developer had already handed over the flat along with garage as is where is basis” to the complainant/respondent herein in the year 2017. Therefore, in terms of the prayer of the consumer complaint, no commission is required.

5. In opposition to that, Mr. Abijit Gope, Ld. Counsel, appearing on behalf of the Respondent/Complainant has submitted that though flat with garage was handed over but there is dispute regarding specification of garage. That apart, there is specific allegation in the consumer complaint with regard to incomplete bathroom fittings. Before parting with, Mr. Gope has submitted that there are other incomplete works in the building. Accordingly, order impugned in this revision application was rightly passed by the Jurisdictional DCDRC.

6. Upon a meticulous examination of the consumer complaint – with particular emphasis on the schedule of prayers appended thereto – it is manifest that although possession of the subject flat and garage was delivered to the complainant, such delivery allegedly failed to conform to the strict stipulations of the underlying agreement and the deed of conveyance.

7. Furthermore, the complainant/respondent herein asserts a distinct grievance regarding the absolute absence of contractually mandated bathroom fittings. While the opposite parties/revisionist herein