1.       By these Appeals, under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), the Complainants call in question the correctness and legality of  order(s) dated 04.03.2016 passed by the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Kolkata (for short “the State Commission”) in Complaint Cases No. CC/28/2011, CC/30/2011, CC/31/2011, CC/32/2011, CC/33/2011, CC/34/2011 and CC/35/2011.  By the impugned order, the State Commission has held that having regard to the nature of the relief sought for in the Complaints, the Complainants could not be treated as the “consumers” and has, hence, dismissed all the Complaints.   

2.       The relevant portion of the impugned order reads as under:

          “We have heard the submission made by both sides and perused the papers on record.  The Complainants as per averment made in paragraph 1 of the complaint are the intending purchasers of separate composite units of the housing complex under the OPs.  It is the contention of the Complainants that they have paid considerable amount towards consideration and the possession has not been delivered.  In the prayer portion of the complaint the Complainants have prayed for order upon the OPs for execution and registration of the deed of conveyance.  The intention of the Complainants, therefore, is to purchase the scheduled properties as owner thereof.  As per buyer’s agreement the OPs are the lessees under K.M.D.A.  Evidently, therefore, it is a leasehold property where title to the property cannot be conveyed.”

3.       Mr. Ravinder Narain, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent, the sole Opposite Party in the Complaints, who is on Caveat, has very fairly stated that it would perhaps be difficult to defend the view taken by the State Commission and dismissal of the Complaints on the stated ground.  He, however, submits that in arriving at the said conclusion the State Commission seems to have been influenced by the prayer clause in the Complaints, wherein the only relief claimed was the execution of conveyance deed in respect of the bungalows in question, as the Respondent is only a Lessee for 999 years under Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority (KMDA). 

4.       Having heard the learned Counsel, I am of the view that the State Commission has erred in law in non-suiting the Complainants on a hyper-technical ground.  In my opinion, it was within its jurisdiction to mould the final relief, if the Complainants were otherwise successful in proving their case.  Legally, there was no impediment in the Opposite Party, the Builder, to execute sub-lease in favour of the Complainants, instead of a sale or conveyance deed, as in the case of free-hold land.  I am, therefore, convinced that the impugned order, non-suiting the Appellants on the afore-stated ground cannot be sustained.    

5.       At this juncture, it is submitted by learned Counsel for the Respondent that the Complaints may not be maintainable on certain other grounds, particularly in the light of provisions contained in Section 12(1)(c) read with Section 2(1)(b)(iv) of the Act, the point urged in the Written Version.  Without commenting on the merits of the submission, it is clarified that if any preliminary objection relating to the maintainability of the Complaints has so far not been specifically dealt with by the State Commission, this order will not preclude the Respondent from urging the same at an appropriate stage. 

6.       Mr. Narain also submits that during the pendency of the present Appeals, some of the Appellants have already sorted out their differences with the Respondent and as a matter of fact have taken possession of the bungalows.  If that be so, this fact can be brought to the notice of the State Commission when the Complaints are taken up for consideration.

7.       Consequently, the Appeals are allowed; the impugned order is set aside; and the afore-noted Complaints are restored to the board of the State Commission for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.

8.       The parties/their Counsel are directed to appear before the State Commission on 30.09.2016 for further proceedings. 

9.       All the Appeals stand disposed of in the above terms, with no order as to costs.