C o n s u m e r  C o m p l a i n t  No. 224 of  2022

Date of filing: 02.12.2022                                          Date of disposal: 22.12.2022

Complainant:-Sudeshna Datta, W/O- Mr. Gouranga Datta, Resident of Gitanjali, 223, Kalibazar Road, Burdwan, P.O. & P.S.-Burdwan, Dist. Purba Bardhaman, 713101.

Vs.

O.Ps:-1. Biswa Bijoy Ghosh, M/S Jhinuk Construction, S/o-Lt. Ajit Kumar Ghosh, Resident of Kalimohanpally, Bolpur, P.O. & P.S.-Bolpur, Dist. Birbhum, 713204.

2. Kartikmohan Ghosh, S/o-Lt. Narayan Chandra Ghosh of Mahamayapally, Karimpur, P.O. & P.S. Karimpur, Dist. Nadira, 741152, present address at Block-B, FF-3, Alapan Apartments, Bandhgora, Bolpur, P.O. & P.S.- Bolpur, Dist. Birbhum, 713204.

3. The Chairman, Bolpur Municipality, Bolpur, Birbhum.

4. The Secretary, Alapan & Alapan Apartment Owners Association, Bandhgora, Bolpur, P.O. & P.S.-Bolpur, Dist. Birbhum, 713204.

Order  Date:22.12.2022

Today is fixed for admission hearing.

Complainant files hazira. The record is taken-up for admission hearing.

Heard the Ld. Advocate for the complainant.

Perused the complaint and Xerox copies of document so filed by the complainant. It appears that the complainant has filed this case against O.P. Nos.1, 2, 3 & 4 out of which O.P. Nos.2,3 & 4 are the resident  of Block –B, FF-3, Alapan Apartments, Bandhgora, Bolpur, P.O. & P.S.-Bolpur, Dist.-Birbhum, Pin-713204, Bolpur Municipality, Bolpur, Birbhum  and  the Secretary, Alapan & Alapan Apartment Owners Association, Bandhgora, Bolpur, P.O. & P.S.-Bolpur, Dist.-Birbhum, 713204.

O.P. No.1-Biswa Bijoy Ghosh, M/s. Jhinuk Construction, S/o-Lt. Ajit Kumar Ghosh, Resident of Kalimohanpally, Bolpur, P.O. & P.S.-Bolpur, Dist.-Birbhum, 713204. According to the case of the complainant O.P. Nos.2, 3 & 4 are not the service provider to the complainant in respect of her flat and the complainant is not the consumer under them.

The complainant purchased the flat by way of registered deed on 19.09.2016 by paying a sum of Rs.14,000,08/- and took possession of flat on that very date from O.P. No.1 and subsequently the dispute cropped up in between the complainant and O.P. Nos.1, 2 & 4 when the O.Ps covered his open terrace attached to the flat of the complainant and O.P. No.2 by tin shed and also open a door/entrance from the O.P. No.2.

From this case of complainant, it is clear that being the promoter he had a duty to handover the possession of flat-in-question as he was a service provider to the complainant and after handed over the possession without any objection by the complainant on 19.09.2016, the O.P. No.1 had ceased his all duties and responsibilities being the service provider to the complainant and since then the complainant raised no objection against the flat-in-question. But subsequently, the dispute arose in between the complainant and O.P. No.2 who is the resident of B Block and the O.P. No.1 did not raise such disputes and his liability has been ended on 19.09.2016. Therefore the complainant is not at all consumer under the O.P. No.1 also as no dispute arose regarding the flat-in-question in between complainant and O.P. No.1 since 19.09.2016. The dispute has started in the complaint is purely civil dispute between herself and O.P. No.2 which does not attract the provision of C.P. Act, 2019. If any dispute was existed in the flat then then complainant ought to take a step within two years since 19.09.2016. There is no such dispute disclose in the petition against him and if it would have existed, then it is also time barred.

Hence, it is

                                                O R D E R E D

that this case being No.CC-224/2022 be and the same is not admitted and thus disposed of.

Let a copy of this order be given to the complainant on free of cost.

                                          Member                                                          President

                             D.C.D.R.C., Purba Bardhaman.                                D.C.D.R.C., Purba Bardhaman