DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

   SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS,

   AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR, KOLKATA-700 144

             C.C. CASE NO. 170 OF 2014

DATE OF FILING: 21.4.2014                    DATE OF JUDGEMENT:  4.7.2019

Present                 :   President       :   Ananta Kumar Kapri

                                 Member         :   Jhunu Prasad                        

COMPLAINANT      :  1a)   Sri Krishna Chandra Mishra, son of Surendra Chandra Mishra of 40, Trikone Park Nanibala Sarani, North Balia, P.O Garia, P.S Sonarpur, Kolkata-84.

                                      b)   Sri Suman Mishra, son of Krishna Chandra Mishra of 40, Trikone Park Nanibala Sarani, North Balia, P.O Garia, P.S Sonarpur, Kolkata-84

• VERSUS  -

O.P/O.Ps                    :  1.   Sri Surojit Das, son of late Sanjit Das of Sonarpur Nawapara, P.S Sonarpur, Kolkata-84.

                                      2.    Smt. Shyamali Das, wife of Sri Asish Das of Village-Sodhour Dhopapara, P.O Haridevpur, P.S Thakurpukur, Kolkata-82.

___________________________________________________________________

JUDGMENT

Sri Ananta Kumar Kapri, President

                   Facts as it transpires in the amended complaint, may be epitomized as follows.

          Present complainants are legal representatives of one Rupali Mishra who was the original complainant herein. She expired and the present complainants have stepped in her shoes. Similarly the original O.P namely Sanjeet Das has also expired and the present O.Ps i.e O.P 1(a) and 1(b) are legal representatives of the said original O.P.

           A sale agreement dated 26.2.2014 was executed by and between the original complainants and the original O.P and thereby the original O.P agreed to sell one shop room measuring 119 sq.ft as succinctly described in schedule to amended complaint to the said complainant for a total consideration price of Rs.8 lac. The said complainant paid Rs.2 lac to the original O.P. It was in the agreement of the parties that the O.P would execute and register a sale deed within a month of receipt of balance consideration money from the original complainant. But, since then, neither the original O.P had ,nor the present O.Ps have executed and registered the sale deed in favour of the present complainant inspite of repeated requests made on their behalf and, therefore, the complaint case has been filed, praying for execution and registration of sale deed in favour of the complainant with respect to the shop room.

            One written version was filed by the original O.P to contest the case and it is submitted therein that the sale agreement was cancelled by him due to negligence and fault of the original complainant and that the advance money which was received by him from the said complainant was also returned . So to him, complainant was not entitled to any kind of sale deed ,as prayed for. 

          Upon the averments of the parties, the following points are formulated for consideration.

                                      POINT FOR DETERMINATION

1. Is the case maintainable in law?
2. Are the O.Ps guilty of deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant?
3. Are the complainants entitled to get relief or reliefs, if any,  as prayed for?

  EVIDENCE OF THE PARTIES    

           Evidence on affidavit is filed by the complainant and the same is kept in the record. The original O.P filed written version and did not turn up thereafter.  He did not file any evidence and, therefore, the case proceeds exparte against him.    

DECISION WITH REASONS

Point no.1  , 2 & 3 :

           A copy of sale agreement dated 26.2.2014 is filed on record by the complainant. On perusal of this agreement, it transpires that the original O.P namely Sanjeet Das purchased the subject shop room from the developer of “Kalyani Construction” and was in possession thereof. Thereafter, he i.e the original O.P agreed to sell the subject shop room to the original complainant i.e Rupali Mishra for Rs.8 lac and also left possession thereof in favour of the said complainant. No service whatsoever is agreed to be rendered by the original O.P to the original complainant. The transaction between the original complainant and the original O.P appears to be absolutely a sale simpliciter; there is no service involved in that transaction. This being the facts and materials on record , we feel not a least hesitation to say that the instant case is not maintainable in law. The case of the original complainants comes squarely within the specific performance of contract which falls within the ambit of Civil Court. This Forum does not have any jurisdiction to deal with such type of case.

           Again, it is admittedly agreed between the parties that a shop room would be sold to the original complainant by the original O.P. There is no averment in the complaint to the effect that the complainant wanted to purchase the shop room for earning her livelihood by means of self employment. In absence of such averment in the petition of complaint, we feel constrained to say that the original complainant was not a consumer within the meaning of the term “Consumer” under section 2(1)(d)  of the C.P Act, 1986.          Hence, point no.1 goes  answered against the complainant.

            In view of the decision on point no.1, these two points i.e Point nos. 2 and 3 are also decided against the complainant.

           In the  result, the case fails.

            Hence,

                                                                   ORDERED

            That the complaint case be and the same is dismissed exparte against the O.Ps , but without any cost.

                        Registrar-In-Charge of this Forum is directed to send a copy of the judgment free of cost at once to the parties concerned by speed post.

                                                                                                                   President

I / We agree

                                                          Member

          Dictated and corrected by me

                             President