FINAL ORDER/JUDGMENT

Minakshi Chakraborty,  Presiding Member.

 Brief facts of the case:   

 This case has been filed U/S 35 of the Consumer Protection Act,2019 by the complainants describing that the complainants entered into an agreement for sale on 4.3.2019 corresponding to 19^th Falgun, 1425 B.S. with the opposite party for purchasing the schedule mentioned property for a total consideration of Rs. 3,00,000/- and they paid Rs. 1,00,000/- only as earnest money while entering into such agreement. Thereafter the complainants paid Rs. 20,000/- on 2.6.2019, Rs. 30,000/- on 17.6.2019, Rs. 50,000/- on 27.6.2019 and Rs. 60,000/- on 17.7.2019 to the opposite party. The opposite party has put his signature in every pages of the said agreement and there are two witnesses in the said agreement.

           As per agreement dt. 4.3.2019 it was settled that the opposite party would register the schedule-mentioned property in favour of the complainants before the registering authority within a period of four months from the date of execution of the said agreement and after entering into such agreement the opposite party has started to receive the rest consideration amount part by part in various dates. Since August, 2019 inspite of repeated requests and reminders the opposite party did not take any initiative to register the schedule mentioned property after receiving the rest consideration money of Rs. 40,000/- only and the complainants requested the opposite party several times to register the schedule mentioned property in favour of the complainants but there were no fruitful result. On 14.2.2021 the complainants again requested the opposite party to receive rest Rs. 40,000/- and execute and register the deed of sale in favour of the complainants but there were no fruitful result.

           Finally the complainants sent two letters dt. 23.2.2021 and 9.3.2021 through ld. Advocate to the opposite party in his two different addresses to execute and register the deed of conveyance in favour of the complainants but said two letters have returned with endorsements “insufficient address”.

           Complainants have filed the present complaint praying direction upon the opposite party to execute and register the deed of conveyance in respect of the  property and to grant injunction over the said property to restrain the opposite party from not to sell the said property to anyone and  pay a sum of Rs.  1,00,000/- for mental agony, anxiety and harassment and  to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- for litigation cost and also to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- for unfair trade practice and to give any other relief or reliefs as deem fit and proper.

Evidence on record

The complainant filed evidence on affidavit which is nothing but replica of complaint petition and supports the averments of the complainant in the complaint petition.

Argument highlighted by the ld. Lawyers of the parties

Complainant filed written notes of argument. As per BNA the evidence on affidavit and written notes of argument of complainant are to be taken into consideration for passing final order.

           Argument of the complainants heard in full. In course of argument ld. Lawyer of complainants has given emphasis on evidence and document produced by them.

From the discussion hereinabove, we find the following issues/points for consideration.

Issues/points for consideration

1. Whether the complainant is the consumer?
2. Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the case?
3. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief?

DECISION WITH REASONS

Issue no.1:

    At the outset this commission takes up the point for consideration that whether both the complainants Mr. Satyan Santra and Narayan Sengupta can be defined as consumers .True it is that both the petitioners entered into an agreement which has been defined as original bainanama with the O.P on 23/4/2019. A perusal of this biananama apparently indicates that both the petitioners entered into this agreement ( annexure A) for purchasing the scheduled property for a total consideration of Rs. 3,00,000/ and a part consideration money of Rs. 1,00,000/ was paid as earnest money while entering into such agreement. At a subsequent stage on different occasions huge quantum of money has been paid totaling of Rs. 2,60,000/ and only an amount of Rs. 40,000/ still remained due but on different pleas the deed of conveyance has not come into light by the O.P. On different pleas on various pretexts there was no execution aand registration of deed of sale in favour of both the petitioners.

Now the pertinent question arises for our consideration on the basis of the above facts and circumstances whether the petitioners come within the definition of consumers? It is pertinent to note herein that inspite of taking earnest endeavor even by paper publication the O.P has not made his appearance to contest the case.

On perusal of the document referred to herein above it is apparent that the petitioners entered into an agreement to purchase of one plot of land measuring about 2.5 cent of landed property for a consideration of Rs 3,00,000/ for which payment has also been made on different dates of Rs. 2,60,000/but the same has not been registered approximately with a period of four months. In view of above even in absence of the O.P this commission thinks it fit to hold that the agreement is simply for a purchase of plot of land and that is why it cannot be supposed whether the agreement was entered into for which the complainants can be termed as consumers in accordance with the CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT as the agreement does not even in a single word appears to have said that the said land was supposed to be purchased for their own personal use or for the purchase of manufacturing or resale as has been defined in Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act .

On consideration of the above facts and circumstances this commission cannot but hold that the petitioners are not consumers as per provision of Consumer Protection Act.

Issue no.2,3 &4

All these issues do not appear to be necessary for discussion.

Hence,

Ordered

that the Complaint Case No. 81 of 2021 be and the same is dismissed with no order as to cost. Complainant has given liberty to file the suit in proper Forum for redressal of his grievances.

Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgement/ sent by ordinary post for information and necessary action.

The Final Order will be available in the following website www.confonet.nic.in.