Order No. 02

Ld. Advocate for the complainants is present.

The case is taken up for admission hearing.

The case of the complainants is that they have purchased of a flat being No. 2A, 2^nd Floor (South West Side) in “Arpit Apartment”, Holding No. RGM/AS/314/BL – AM/08-09, Krishnapur, Ghoshpara, at Mouza – Krishnapur, R.S. Dag No. 3168, Ward No. 034, under P.S. – Baguiati, Kolkata – 700102, District – North 24 Parganas from the opposite parties in the year 2013 vide registered Deed of Conveyance recorded in Book No. 1, CD Volume No. 8, from pages 14142 to 14176 being No. 05906 for the year 2013 registered before Additional District Sub-Registrar, Rajarhat, New Town, West Bengal. Since then the complainants are in possession of the said flat.

According to the complainants that as per verbal agreement with the opposite party no. 1, the complainants paid a sum of Rs. 2,40,000/- (Rupees two lakh forty thousand) to the opposite party no. 1 vide two cheques being Nos. 826431 and 183008 both drawn on Axis Bank in favour of opposite party no. 1 for purchasing of a car parking space on the ground floor of the building. Subsequent to the payment, the opposite parties allotted the car parking space in favour of the complainants vide letter dated 11.04.2014, but deliberately failed and neglected to physically demarcate and/or earmark the said car parking space allotted in favour of the complainants. Moreover, in spite of repeated requests, the opposite parties have not executed the deed of conveyance in respect of the said car parking space in favour of the complainants. The complainants have already paid the total stamp duty, registration fees amounting to Rs. 19,086/- to the Government of West Bengal on 30.11.2018. Therefore, the opposite parties are liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence, this case.

It is apparent on the face of the complaint that the verbal agreement between the complainants and opposite parties was for purchasing a ready constructed car parking space of the building for which the complainants have paid the consideration amount to the opposite parties.

Therefore, no service has been purchased by the complainants. Rather it is outright verbal sale agreement of immovable property between the parties as alleged which does not come under the purview of the Act.

Having considered the discussion made above, it is crystal clear that the complainants are not consumers in terms of Section 2 (7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Therefore, this Commission lacks jurisdiction to try the case.

The complaint case is not maintainable in law.

Hence it is,

Ordered

     that the complaint case be and the same is dismissed without cost.

Let a plain copy be given to the parties free of cost as per CPR.

Dictated and corrected by

[HON'BLE MRS. Firoza Khatoon]
PRESIDENT I/C