Prasenjit Mandal, J. - (1.) This application is at the instance of the petitioners and is directed against the order no.9 dated May 20, 2009 and the final order dated May 29, 2009 passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal in appeal being number S. C. Case No.FA/08/469 of 2008.
(2.) The complainant/opposite party no.1 instituted a complaint being No.HDE Case No.156 of 2006 against the petitioners praying for directing the opposite parties to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for the unnatural death of his wife caused due to leakage of gas from the defective gas cylinder supplied by the opposite party no.3, on behalf of the opposite party nos.1 & 2 and other reliefs. In that complaint cast, the opposite parties appeared and upon recording evidence on behalf of both the parties, the learned District Consumer Forum allowed the complaint on August 28, 2008 on compromise against the opposite party nos.4 & 5 by passing an award of Rs.90,000/- to the complainant as compensation and dismissing the complaint case against the petitioners and the proforma opposite party no.2 herein. Challenging the said order, an appeal being no.FA/08/469 of 2008 was preferred by the complainant before the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal. That appeal was fixed for hearing on April 28, 2009 and on that day the learned Advocate for the petitioners could not reach the State Commission in time and he filed a written note of argument against the appeal preferred by the complainant. The appellate authority, however, granted leave to mention the matter after service of notices upon the parties. Accordingly, the petitioner served a notice upon the opposite parties and on May 4, 2009 they filed an application for putting up the case. But the learned State Commission rejected that prayer by an order dated May 20, 2009 and fixed the next date for delivery of judgment. Thereafter, on May 29, 2009, the State Commission delivered the judgment directing the respondent nos.1 to 3 to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant/opposite party herein. Being aggrieved by such order of the State Commission, this application has been filed by the respondent nos.1 & 2/petitioners herein. Mr. M. K. Das, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submits that the petitioners could not appear on the date fixed for hearing the appeal, that is, on April 28, 2009 because he was late due to traffic jam and on that day, he tried to file a power and a written note of argument against the appeal. But the opposite party refused to accept the same on the ground that hearing was completed by that time. Therefore, the petitioners could not place their grievance before the appellate forum properly. He also contends that as per verbal direction of the learned Tribunal, the petitioners served a notice to the opposite parties and they filed an application on May 4, 2009 for putting up the record. But that application was rejected by the order dated May 29, 2009. And then, the learned Commission delivered the judgment on May 29, 2009. So, the petitioners could not get adequate opportunity to ventilate their grievance and they were directed to pay a considerable sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation. He also contends that when there is a perverse finding or there is no evidence at all to support the judgment, this Court exercising the jurisdiction of superintendence can well entertain the application under Article 227 of the Constitution and to pass appropriate orders for the ends of justice. In support of his contention Mr. Das has referred to the decision of Hooghly Co-operative Agriculture & Rural Development Bank Ltd. Vs. Nemai Chandra Ghosh reported in AIR 2007 Cal 230 (passed by a learned Single Bench of this Honble Court).
(3.) On the other hand, Mr. Banerjee, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the opposite party, submits that the District consumer forum gave adequate opportunities to the petitioners and other opposite parties, thereafter, the District Consumer Forum passed the order granting 90,000/- as compensation against the opposite party nos.4 & 5 only and it dismissed the claim against the opposite party nos.1 to 3. Being not satisfied with such amount, the complainant preferred an appeal. But on the date of hearing of the appeal, the petitioners did not appear at all. As such, the hearing was treated as completed. The learned District Consumer Forum as well as the State Commission discussed the evidence on record in details and thereafter came to their respective findings and such findings are not without any materials at all. These findings cannot be described as perverse also. Under the circumstances, there is nothing to interfere with the impugned order of the learned State Commission. Moreover, when there is a provision for moving the higher forum, namely, the National Commission no revisional application lies. In support of his decision, Mr. Banerjee appearing for the opposite party has referred to the decision of Manager, Burdwan Co-operative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank Ltd. Vs. Anath Bandhu Dhara reported in 2009 (2) CLJ (Cal) 685 passed by a learned Single Judge, Justice Tapan Mukherjee (as His Lordship then was) wherein he has held that the revisional application before the High Court is not maintainable.;