Dated : 19 July, 2022

Final Order / Judgement

HON’BLE MR. SUPDIP NIYOGI,                     PRESIDENT

FACTS IN BRIEF

       The case of the complainant in short is that  his mother Rupa Devi Saraf is a tenant in the property  as mentioned in the schedule to the complaint  under the OP  who is the actual owner/landlord of the property.  One ejectment  suit was initiated by the OP against the mother  of the  complainant in a Civil Court. However, the said suit was ultimately, dismissed for default. Subsequently, one agreement for sale (written  as a  bi-party development  for sale in the  petition of complaint) was entered into between the complainant and the OP on 7^th October, 2016 by which the complainant  agreed to purchase the flat as mentioned in the schedule at a  consideration of 18,00,000/- for which he paid Rs.3,00,000/- on the date of the agreement and subsequently,  he also paid on different  dates  thereby making up payment of 13,00,000/- lakh out of total  consideration of Rs.18,00,000/-. It is alleged that the  execution of the deed of conveyance and registration thereof  is not being done by the OP on receiving the balance consideration. Complainant issued notice in this regard through his advocate,  but to no  effect. Thus, complainant filed  this case before  this commission praying  for an order or direction upon the OP to execute and register  a valid sale deed in respect of the scheduled property and several other reliefs.

 OP  did not appear and contest this case, so the case was  heard ex parte against him.

 The complainant  is found to have filed memorandum of agreement for sale dated 7^th October, 2016 between the complainant and the OP, several letters issued to the OP  on behalf of the complainant, the documents showing document towards consideration price etc. Complainants also filed his evidence on affidavit.

 Now the point  for consideration is the complainant  entitled to the relief(s) as prayed for in this case.

FINDINGS

            We have gone through  the petition of complaint, evidence of  the complainant filed on affidavit and also the documents.

At the  very outset, the moot question that comes to our mind  is whether the complainant can be termed as a consumer in connection with this case. The term “Consumer”  has been defined in Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The relevant portion of the  definition of “Consumer”   in the context of the present case is reproduced below:-

“Consumer” means any person who -

1. Buys any goods  for a consideration which has been paid or  promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment  and includes any user of such goods  other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system or deferred payment, when such use is made with the approval of such person,  but does not include a person who obtains  such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose, or

2. Hires or avails of any service for a  consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such service other than  the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of  deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person, but does not include a person avails of such service for any commercial purpose.

Thus, in the light of the abovedefinitionwhat we findin this casethere is no story ofbuying of any goods or hiring or availing of any service for a consideration. Mere by making an agreement for buying a self-containedflat, thedispute cannot be brought within the Consumer Protection Act.An agreement for sale of a self-containedflat or plot of land simpliciter, cannot come within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, if thereis or was a violation of the terms of the agreement by either of the parties.

In this case, admittedly, the complainant and his mother have been residing at thepremisesin questionas tenant under the OP. An agreement was made to purchase that flat from the OP by the complainantand a failureto execute the deed on the part of the OP cannot come within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act.

                        Hence, we are sorry to say that the complainant does not have any relief in connection with his complaint before                                        commission. So the instant case is liable to be dismissed.

          Hence,                                      it is

                                                                     ORDERED

                The instant case be and the same isdismissed ex parte. No order as to cost.

Dictated and corrected by me.