| Complaint Case No. CC/14/326 |
| | | | 1. PRITAM KR. GHOSH | | S/o A. K. Ghosh, 29/1/1 Panchanan Chatterjee Lane, P.S. Bantra, | | District Howrah, 711101 | | W.B |
| ...........Complainant(s) | |
| Versus | | 1. ASHIS PACHAL | | S/o Lt. Kanailal Panchal, 72, Joynarayan Babu Ananda Dutta Lane, P.S. Bantra | | Howrah-711101 | | W.B. |
| ............Opp.Party(s) |
|
|
| ORDER | DATE OF FILING : 09.6.2014. DATE OF S/R : 14.8.2014. DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 11.6.2015. Pritam Kr. Ghosh, son of A.K. Ghosh, 29/1/1 Panchanan Chatterjee Lane, P.S. Bantra, District Howrah, PIN 711101. ………………………………………………………….. COMPLAINANT. Versus - Ashis Pachal, son of late Kanailal Pachal, 72, Joynarayan Babu Ananda Dutta Lane, P.S. Bantra, District Howrah, PIN 711101. ….………………………………………………………OPPOSITE PARTY. P R E S E N T Hon’ble President : Shri B. D. Nanda, M.A. ( double ), L.L.M., WBHJS. Hon’ble Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha. Hon’ble Member : Shri A.K. Pathak, L.l.b., ( Retired Railway Officer ). F I N A L O R D E R - Complainant, Pritam Kr. Ghosh,by filing a petition U/S 12 of the C .P. Act, 1986 ( as amended up to date ) has prayed for a direction to be given upon the o.p. to refund advance amount of Rs. 30,000/- so paid by the complainant, to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation, Rs. 5,000/as litigation costs alongwith other relief or reliefs as the Forum may deem fit and proper.
- The case of the complainant, in brief, is that he entered into an agreement dated 16.9.2013 vide Annexure for a residential flat as licensee with o.p. and paid Rs. 30,000/- as advance and Rs. 4,300/- per month as rent for two years. The complainant gave one cheque towards the same and the o.p. encashed the cheque. After lapse of few months complainant handed over his possession on 31.12.2013 and claimed his deposited advance amount of Rs. 30,000/-. The o.p. did not pay any heed to his request. So finding no other alternative, complainant filed this case with the aforesaid prayers. Hence the case.
- Notice was served. The o.p. appeared and filed written version. Accordingly, the case was heard on contest.
- Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :
i) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. ? - Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS : - Both the points are taken up together for consideration. We have carefully gone through the written version filed by o.p. on 27.5.2015 and noted its contents. It is admitted by the o.p. that complainant paid Rs. 30,000/- as advance for residential purpose as per the agreement dated 16.9.2013. But before the completion of the tenure of the said agreement, complainant handed over his tenanted portion to the o.p. and started claiming his deposited amount. Here we take a pause. On careful perusal of the agreement dated 16.9.2013 it is very clear that the agreement was entered by and between the parties as licensor and licensee. In other words to say complainant became a tenant of the o.p. in terms of the said agreement dated 16.9.2013. And as a tenant,the complainant cannot be treated as ‘Consumer’ as per Section 2(1)(d) of the C.P. Act, 1986 as amended upto date.
In the result, the instant complaint case fails. Hence, O R D E R E D That the C. C. Case No. 326 of 2014 ( HDF 326 of 2014 ) be dismissed without costs against o.p. Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule. DICTATED & CORRECTED BY ME. ( Jhumki Saha) Member, C.D.R.F., Howrah. | |
