03.07.2026 Ct. No. 30 Sl. No.19 skg CO 4076 of 2023 Mrs. Debjani Dutta (Paul) Vs. Smt. Papiya Biswas & Ors. Mr. Samrat Dey Paul, Adv. …for the petitioner Mr. Arun Kumar Das, Adv. Mr. Partha Pratim De, Adv. Mr. Pinaki Brata Ghosh, Adv. …for the opposite party no.1 Mr. Soumajit Ghosal, Adv. Mr. Abhinaba Roy, Adv. …for the opposite party no. 2 and 3 1. The revisional application has been preferred challenging an order dated 26.09.2023 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal in Revision Petition No. 114 of 2023 arising out of complaint case no.267 of 2022. 2. The West Bengal State Consumer Redressal Commissioner, Kolkata has been pleased to pass the impugned order, wherein the relevant observation of the Court are reproduced herein: “The instant revision petition has been filed by the revisionist/OP no.1 questioning propriety of the order dated 30.06.2023 passed by the Ld. DCDRC Kolkata-III (South) in Complaint Case No. CC/267/2022 pending before it. Order No.09 dated 30.06.202 is reproduced under: 2 "Today is fixed for filing questionnaire by the complainant Ld advocate appearing for the complainant is present Files the questionnaire Copy served. Ld. Advocate appearing for the OP 1 is present Ld. Advocate appearing for OP 2 & 3 are present. Hence, fix 31/8/2023 for filing reply by the OP." x x x x x x Ld. Advocate for the revisionist has stated that a complaint case being No. CC/267/2022 has been preferred by the complainant/respondent no.1 of the revision petition against the revisionist/OP No.1 in collusion with respondents no. 2 & 3/OPs no. 2 & 3 of the complaint case. On 03.01.2023 the complaint case was fixed for filing questionnaire by the OPs against the evidence filed by the complainant, neither the OP No.2 nor the OP No.3 filed their respective questionnaires and expressed their unwillingness to file the same. On 28.04.2023 when the date was fixed for filing evidence by OPs, the OPs No. 2 & 3 refused to serve the copy of evidence to the OP No.1/Revisionist. Then the OP No.1 has applied for certified copy of the respective of evidence of OP No.2 and OP No.3 and those were received on 28.04.2023. When the OP No.2 has gone through the evidence of OPs No. 2 & 3, OP No.1 found several allegations against her without any documentary evidence. Then the OP No.1 prepared her questionnaire against the evidence of OPs No. 2 & 3 and on 28.06.2023 OP No.1 has prayed for filing the questionnaires against the evidence on affidavit of OPs No. 2 & 3. But such prayer was denied by the Ld. DCDRC. Thereafter the date was fixed for filing questionnaire by the complainant on 30.06.2023. Accordingly, the complainant filed their 3 questionnaire on 30.06.2023 and the next date was fixed for filing reply by OP. x x x x x x It is to be noted that as per Consumer Protection Act, the opportunity for filing questionnaire has been given to other side against the evidence on affidavit of one side. The opportunity for filing questionnaire to the OPs is given against the evidence on affidavit filed by the complainant and vice versa. As per Consumer Protection Act there is no provision to give the chance to each and every OP to file his/her questionnaire against the evidence of other OPs. The OPs are given chance to file questionnaire against the evidence on affidavit filed by complainant/complainants. On 03.01.2023 the OP No. 1 already filed her questionnaire against the evidence on affidavit filed by the complainant. Therefore, after 28.04.2023 the date was fixed for filing questionnaire by the complainant against the evidence of OPs as per provision of law." 3. As the commission found no illegality in the impugned order the revisional application was dismissed on the finding that it was not maintainable. 4. The learned Counsel for the opposite party no.1 has argued that the revisional application before the State Commission was not maintainable, in view of Section 40 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, as the petitioner herein without preferring a review before the District forum approached the State Commission in Revision. 4 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the parties herein admit that no application in writing was filed by the opposite party no.1/petitioner herein before the District Commission praying for leave to file questionnaire. 6. It appears that the said prayer was an oral prayer made before the DCDRC the and the same was denied. The fact of making such oral prayer or such denial is not part of the impugned order dated 30.06.2023. As such it appears that DCDRC, Kolkata III (South) in CC/267/2022 prima facie has not recorded, if the opposite party no. 1 made an oral prayer for filing questionnaire or that the said prayer was considered and rejected. 7. There is no recording of any such findings in the impugned order dated 30.06.2023 and as such the State Commission’s observation as noted above is clearly not in accordance with law. The commission has further gone ahead with giving its opinion as to the prayer of the petitioner herein, which was never made in writing before the DCDRC nor before the State Commission. The said observation is also beyond the scope of the power of the State Commission. 8. Considering the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the opposite party no.1 herein that a review is maintainable before the DCDRC, this court is 5 of the view that when the prayer of the petitioner herein, is not part of the impugned order dated 30.06.2023 the scope of preferring a review does not exist. 9. Considering all these facts, this Court finds that the State Commission has considered issues, which was not part of the recorded impugned order before it dated 30.06.2023 and as such the impugned order herein dated 26.09.2023 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal in Revision Petition No. 114 of 2023 arising out of complaint case no.267 of 2022 suffers from inherent illegality and being erroneous is hereby set aside. 10. Considering the issues raised by the petitioner herein the revisional application is disposed of with liberty granted to the O.P. No. 1 / petitioner herein to prefer an application before the DCDRC praying for leave to file questionnaire, within 30 days from the date of this order. 11. The DCDRC shall consider the said application on hearing all parties, as per the relevant provision of the Indian Evidence Act and decide the said application in accordance with law by passing reasoned order preferably within 30 days thereafter. 12. C.O. 4076 of 2023 is accordingly disposed of. 13. There shall be no order as to costs. 6 14. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on usual undertaking. [Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.]