Order no. 2
Ld. Advocate for the complainant is present.
The case is taken up of admission hearing.
The case of the complainant is that she booked a flat with the opposite parties measuring about 1000 sq. ft. super built up area on the 5th floor of premises no.96 Matrumal Lohia Lane, Salkia, Howrah and paid in total a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs) only on 22.02.2020, 20.09.2020 and 27.09.2020. The opposite parties have not handed over the possession of the flat till date.
Therefore the complainant prayed for possession of the flat in the alternative refund of the principle amount paid to the opposite parties inter alia on other reliefs.
From annexure A1 series it appears that the complainant has paid in total sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs) only to the opposite parties but the documents do not disclose the detail description of either any flat or shop room or office room or garage or any premises number. The booking application annexure 2 though mentioned “flat 5th floor’ area 1,000/- sq. ft., plot value Rs.22,00,000/- (Rupees twenty two lakhs) only booking amount 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) only” but no premises number has been mentioned neither the application for booking bears any signature of opposite party no.1. The office seal affixed thereto is also not legible.
On further scrutiny we find a typed copy of agreement for sale annexed as annexure A3 which does not bear any signature of the parties mentioned thereto. Copies of several letters of the complainant are annexed but the complainant alleges that she received no reply of the same from the opposite parties.
Considering the documents annexed to the complaint application, we are of the opinion that the complainant has not been able to prima facie prove that there was any contract for ‘housing construction’ and selling of a flat mentioned in schedule of the complaint application with the complainant and the opposite parties. There is apparently no document to prima facie hold that there is any privity of contract between the parties in respect of the properties mentioned in the schedule of the complaint application. We are of the opinion that by no stretch of imagination the complainant can be considered as a consumer in terms of Consumer Protection Act, 2019. But it is apparent from the documents that the complainant has paid in total Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs) only to opposite party no.1 and opposite party no.2.
Considering the discussion made above we have no hesitation to hold that the remedy lies with the Civil Court and this Court has no jurisdiction to try the case. Therefore, the case is not maintainable in law.
Hence, it is
O R D E R E D
that the complaint case be and the same is dismissed as not maintainable without cost.
