Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that she has filed this Appeal against the Order of the West Bengal Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dated 29.07.2024, wherein her Complaint was dismissed on ground of maintainability. The State Commission relied upon the Order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Oberoi Forwarding Agency Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. Decided on 01.02.2000 and dismissed the Complaint by considering the Complainant as not a ‘Consumer’ under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

           The State Commission also noted that the right to transfer of any immoveable property cannot be acted upon in the manner which was stated in the Complaint and that the letter of assignment given by the original unit holder to the Complainant was vague and cannot be acted upon.

           Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Order relied upon by the State Commission has been overturned by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Economic Transport Organisation, Delhi Vs. Charan Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. (2010) 4 SCC 114 wherein it has been observed as under:-

“49. With great respect to the learned Judges who decided Oberai, it has to be held that Oberai was not correctly decided, as it held a "subrogation-cum-assignment" as a mere "assignment". It ignored the fact that, shorn of the cover and protection of subrogation, the document, if read as a simple assignment would fall foul of Section 6(e) of the Transfer of Property. Act and thus would be unenforceable. But the ultimate decision in Oberai may be correct as the complaint was filed by the insurer, in its own name and on its own behalf making a claim for the entire value of the goods, in excess of what was paid to the assured. Though the assured was belatedly impleaded as a co-complainant, the nature and contents of the complaint were not apparently changed, and continued to be one by the insurer as assignee. On those peculiar facts, the finding that the complaint under the Act by the insurer (who was not a consumer) was not maintainable, was justified.”

           She further submitted that the question of the assignment made by the original unit holder to the subsequent purchaser is a matter which needs to be argued upon and for that she needs an opportunity to argue the same before the State Commission and that the State Commission should not have dismissed the Complaint at the outset without hearing the Complaint. She further submitted that there has been an element of service which the Complainant has availed from the Opposite Parties as he has made certain payments for the unit in question and that the letter of assignment made by the original unit holder to the Complainant has been accepted by the Opposite Parties and payments have been both received as well as made to the Complainant pursuant to such assignment. Therefore, the Complainant is covered under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

           The prayer of the Complainant is for refunding of the balance amount which had been deposited by him towards the consideration of the unit as the major amount has already been refunded and only a small amount still left over to be refunded.

           In view of the submission made by the learned Counsel for the Appellant, and on perusal of record and the case laws filed by the learned Counsel, we are of the considered opinion that the matter needs to be heard on merits by the State Commission. An opportunity should be provided to the Complainant to argue the matter especially on the objections raised by the State Commission regarding the legality of the assignment.

           The Appeal is remanded to the State Commission, which shall hear the matter on merits.

           The Order of the State Commission dated 29.07.2024 is set aside.

           Parties to appear before the State Commission on 14.10.2024.

           The First Appeal is accordingly disposed of.