Date of Filing: 31.08.2021 Date of Disposal: 23.08.2022.
Complainant: Amarnath Gour, Resident of House No.98/270, P.O. & P.S.- Khuladabad, Dist. Allahabad, Pin-211001, Presently residing at Dipupara, VIP Lane, Pani Tanky, P.O.-Dhadka, P.S.-Asansol, Dist. Paschim Bardhaman, W.B.-713303, Phone No.-6392151416.
- V E R S U S -
Opposite Parties: 1. Denin Ventures Consulting Pvt. Ltd. Office at 132/28 2nd Floor, Anantaraj Plaza, M.G. Marg, Civil Lines, near Bank of Baroda, Allahabad, U.P.-211001, represented by its Directors.
2. Shani Srivastava, Director of Denin Ventures Consulting Pvt. Ltd. Office at-132/28 2nd Floor, Anantaraj Plaza, M.G. Marg, Civil Lines, near Bank of Baroda, Allahabad, U.P.-211001
3. Suraj Singh, Director of Denin Ventures Consulting Pvt. Ltd. Office at-132/28 2nd Floor, Anantaraj Plaza, M.G. Marg, Civil Lines, near Bank of Baroda, Allahabad, U.P.-211001.
4. Ashutosh Choubey, Agent of Denin Ventures Consulting Pvt. Ltd. Office at-132/28 2nd Floor, Anantaraj Plaza, M.G. Marg, Civil Lines, near Bank of Baroda, Allahabad, U.P.-211001 & also the Agent of Zai Son’s Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. at 207, Chakia, Allahabad, U.P.-211016.
5. Zai Son’s Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. at 207, Chakia, Allahabad, U.P.-211016.
6. Md. Zeeshan, Director of Zai Son’s Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. at 207, Chakia, Allahabad, U.P.-211016.
7. Md. Imran, Director of Zai Son’s Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. at 207, Chakia, Allahabad, U.P.-211016.
8. Md. Kamran Siddqui, Director of Zai Son’s Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. at 207, Chakia, Allahabad, U.P.-211016.
Present : Mohammad Muizzuddeen -Hon’ble President.
: Mrs. Lipika Ghosh - Hon’ble Member.
Appeared for the Complainant : Pappu Gupta, Ld. Advocate
Appeared for the Opposite Party : Ex parte
F I N A L O R D E R (Ex Parte)
Order No: 11 Date: 23.08.2022
The complainant files hazira through the Ld. Advocate. Today is fixed for passing ex parte order.
The record is taken-up for ex parte hearing.
The complainant has filed this case on 31.08.2021 u/S 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the OPs.
The case of the complainant, in brief, is that the complainant was needed to buy some vacant land for the purpose of building his residential house and contracted with OP No.4 in the year 2018 for buying some vacant land near Devghat, Allahabad, U.P for Rs.4, 000/- per Sq. Ft. and on that point some works had already been done between the complainant and the OP No.4 which have kept with the custody of OP No.4. After sometimes, the OP No.4 suggested that Devghat property is not fit for the complainant and decided to give some other vacant land at Green Valley in Allahabad at Rs.6000/- per Sq.Ft and the complainant was ready to purchase the land at Green Valley. The complainant expressed his inability to attend from Asansol Division on each date for paper works and OP No.4 assured that he must do all the paper works. Thereafter, the OP No.4 tried to contact with the complainant over Telephone, WhatsApp message and even by Mail for payment of land in question. On that basis, the complainant paid Rs.2,90,000/- to OP No.4, Rs.1,50,000/- to OP No.1 and Rs.1,00,000/- to OP No.5 i.e. the complainant paid in total Rs.5,40,000/- for purchasing the said land. Payment was made through cheque, through cash and the OP No.4 & 5 fixed the value of the land in question at Rs.25,00,000/- which was not mentioned earlier. OP No. 4 also assured that paper works, agreement etc. would be done before handing over the land-in-question. But subsequently, the complainant has not received any response regarding the same from them and that is why he has lodged this case before this Commission.
The cause of action arose initially on 27.02.2021.
Upon this background, the complainant prayed for direction upon the O.Ps to immediate return of the amount of Rs.5,40,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental pain, agony and harassment and litigation cost of Rs.50,000/- along with interest @ 18% till date of payment.
Decision with Reasons
Though the notices were served upon the OP Nos. 1 to 8 yet they did not turn-up to contest the case. Accordingly, the case is heard ex parte.
In order to prove the case, the complainant has filed evidence-on-affidavit and some Xerox copies of documents.
From the evidence on affidavit, it is found that the fact of the case as depicted in the complaint has been corroborated by the complainant by his evidence-on-affidavit.
From the Xerox copy of the documents, it is found that the said payment has been made to the OPs at Allahabad and all the OPs are residing or carrying on their business in Allahabad , Uttar Pradesh and the complainant also projected his address at Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh and presently at Dipupara VIP Lane, near Pani Tank, P.O.-Dhadka, P.S.-Asansol, Dist.-Paschim Bardhaman and one copy of subscription voucher of Indane Gas Agency in the name of the complainant as a consumer under the same, has been filed but the address, as it appears from the said subscription voucher of Indane Gas, that the address of the house owner has been given as the address projected presently in the Cause Title. But he is a permanent resident of Allahabad as stated in the Cause Title. No Xerox copy of any I-Card has been filed.
It is the duty of the complainant to prove his case to the hilt. Accordingly, he has the duty to produce the documentary evidence regarding purchase of land in dispute or the agreement in between the complainant and the OPs. But no such document is forthcoming on behalf of the complainant. Only some Xerox copies of documents are forthcoming to show that the transactions of money have been made in between the complainant and the OPs. But it is not clear from the said Xerox copies of the documents whether it was made for the purchasing of the land for residential purpose or not. By intending to purchase the land cannot become a “Consumer Dispute’ relating to the immovable property (Purchasing of land). There is neither sale of goods nor any hiring of serving for a consideration. Dispute relating to immovable property does not pertain either to goods or service as contemplated under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act.
Therefore, the complaint is not maintainable.
Under the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of opinion that the complainant is not a consumer at all and the case fails.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
that the Consumer Complaint No.132/2021 be and the same is hereby dismissed ex parte but without any order as to cost.
Let a copy of this order be supplied to the parties on free of cost.
Dictated & corrected by me.
President
D.C.D.R.C., Purba Bardhaman
Member President.
D.C.D.R.C., Purba Bardhaman. D.C.D.R.C., Purba Bardhaman
