Jharkhand

Bokaro

CC/18/93

Bageshwar Mahto - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manoj Kumar, Kunj Vihar Associates pvt Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

27 Apr 2024

ORDER

                                District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bokaro

Date of Filing-28-07-2018

Date of final hearing-27-04-2024

 Date of Order-27-04-2024

Case No. 93/2018

Bageshwar Mahato

R/o-Sector-2/C, 2-457, Bokaro Steel City,

Bokaro Near Gurudura 827001

                                      Vrs.

1. Manoj Kumar, Kunj Bihar associats PVT Ltd.

    City Centre-4, B.S. City, Bokaro

           2. Dirctor, Rajeev Kr. Poddar Kunj Bihar associats Ltd.

P-HD-6 City Centre Bokaro

Present:-

                             Shri Jai Prakash Narayan Pandey, President

                  Smt. Baby Kumari, Member

PER- J.P.N Pandey, President

-:Order:-

1. Complainant’s case in brief is that he along with 8 (Eight) other persons paid some money to the O.Ps. for handing over the house after construction on their plot, because O.Ps. were engaged in construction work of the building. On approach by the complainant and other persons O.Ps. received primary amount and assured to give house after payment of instalments and house was to be constructed at Bandhgora site under P.S. Pindrajora, District-Bokaro. In spite of repeated requests work was not started depriving the complainant and others from their house. Hence this case has been filed with prayer to direct the O.Ps. to return the money received from the complainant and others along with interest @ 18% per annum and each of the person be paid Rs. 10,000/- compensation and Rs. 2000/- as litigation cost.
2. O.P. No.2 appeared and has filed W.S. mentioning therein that this case is not maintainable before this Commission as Consumer case and this O.P. was having no concern or business with the complainant or any of the person concern nor any agreement has been executed for construction of house as alleged, which has to be proved by the complainant. Further reply is that complainants are not the consumer of this O.P. who never received any amount from them. Further reply is that this O.P. have/had no sight at Bandhgora under Pindrajora P.S. and never given any advertisement as alleged in said area. Hence it is prayed to dismiss the case.
3. In spite of due service of notice O.P. No.1 never appeared hence case has proceeded ex-parte against him.
4. Now point for determination is whether this case is maintainable before this Commission and complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed.
5. First of all we would like to mention here that in the cause title of the complaint petition only name of Bageshwar Mahto has been mentioned but complaint has been signed by 8 (eight) persons. In this way it is not clear whether this case has been filed in representative capacity or it has been filed by several complainants. In this way on this ground case is not maintainable.
6. Witness No.1 is Bageshwar Mahto and he states at para 13 that agreement paper was prepared regarding the transaction. Witness No.2 is Mina Barnwal she state during cross-examination that she could not say khata and plot number. Further she states that she is not aware about the fact that on the site on which construction was to be made was the site of Kunj-Vihar and she is having no any paper bearing signature of the director of Kunj-Vihar. Witness No.3 also states that he could not say the detail of khata and plot of the land on which construction was to be made and there was no any written agreement. Further he states that he is having no paper bearing signature of Manoj Poddar and Rajiv Poddar. Witness No.4 is Neelima Sinha who states that she does not know whether any agreement was executed between the parties or not.
7. On careful perusal of examination in chief on oath of all the witnesses it appears that all have stated that O.Ps. have committed to hand over the house after construction on their land but non is able to show details of his land on which construction was to be made. Though some of the witness have stated regarding execution of agreement deed but no any agreement deed has been brought on record. All the witness are unable to disclose details of the land on which construction was to be made and they are admitting the fact that they never visited the site on which construction was to be made.
8. Another aspect of this case is that only money receipts have been brought on the record by the complainant which are not sufficient to show that it is in relation to any business transaction rather as per complainant there was single transaction between the parties. In this way this fact alone shows that it is not a case of dispute between consumer and service provider. Hence this case does not come within purview of Consumer Protection Act.
9. In light of above discussion we are of the view that complainant has not proved relationship between the parties as consumer and service provider. Details of the transactions is also not sufficient to show that it was between consumer and service provider. Hence complainant has not proved his case against the O.Ps. Accordingly this case is being dismissed on merit.

 

(J.P.N. Pandey)

                                                                                      President

 

                                                                            

                  

                                                                               (Baby Kumari)

                                                                                       Member