Ld Advocates for complainant and OP1, 2 and 3 are present. Judgement is ready and pronounced in open Commission in 5 pages and 3 separate sheets of paper.

BY -    SRI ASISH DEB, PRESIDENT

Brief facts of the complainant’s case are that the Complainant is a permanent residence within this jurisdiction. The Complainant is  a bonafide consumer of the Opposite Party No. 1 to 3. The opposite party No. 4 is the relative of the complainant. The complainant No. 2, Ex-Service man and he was working as a Central Industrial Security of Force Ministry of Home Affairs as a Sub-Inspector Rank. The complainant No. 1 is a house wife, family of the complainant No. 2 , they are the husband and wife in relation. Owing to service oriented person the complainant did not have the knowledge of the procedure for purchase of the landed property for establishment of residential house for his lively hood. The opposite party No. 4 is a childhood friend of the complainant No. 2 and he sometimes maintained his good relation of the complainant’s family. After retirement of the complainant he expressed his intention for purchase of the landed property in the local area of Salika Damodarpur. The opposite party No. 4 after a few days came to the house of complainant and proposed to the Complainant for purchase of the plot No. 84/1455, 84/1456, 203 and corresponding to L.R 97, 98, 246 area measuring 11.750 Dec. from the landed owner opposite party No. 1 to 2 and 3. and rate was fixed amount of Rs. 14,90,000/- (Fourteen Lakh Ninety only) the complainant arrange the money from various sources with personal loan and Banking loan. There after opposite No. 4 arranged deed writer Ramkrishna Mondal, Salika Damodarpur and the complainant also has been paid Rs. 60,000/- for purpose of the Registration for along with his fees. Thereafter on 13.03.2020  opposite parties 1 to 3  executed and registered the deed of sale in favour of complainant No. 2 before the Tamluk A.D.S.R as per direction and instruction of opposite No. 4 and long after he has handed over the Original deed on 25.11.2020 after making hot quarrel in his residence. On 01.12.2020 the complainant went to the plot of land for possession but one Sankari Acharjee raised objection and came to know that the said plots are not vacant land. After showing the complainant opposite party No. 5 and 6 attacked on the complainant with bamboo stick and rod and restrained them and started illegal construction over the plot. After on 03.12.2020 the complainant No. 1 filed a M.P case - 638 of 2020, U/s - 144(2) of Cr.P.C on 03.12.2020 against the illegal construction. After on 21.12.2020 the 5, 6 opposite party also filed M.P case No. 703 of 2020, dt.21.12.2020 U/s - 144(2) of Cr.P.C against the illegal construction and this. On 23.04.2021 these complainants have collected the complaint along with order after getting the same and it has come to knowledge from the said complaint that they are in possession by constructing a mud house and some of the portion the land are acquired by the P.W.D and those plots, the vendor did not possess the same since long and right title interest of the OPs and they were not in possession since longs more than 25 years. All the act and action of O.P.S (no)  tantamount to unfair Trade Practice . They are liable to pay the entire cost for damage or loss of money as well as physical and mental loss of the complainant. The complainant did not get possession of the alleged property and all the vendor (1, 2, 3) OPs are avoiding the same and this fact only the complainants are suffering a lot. The complainant prior to this case  has sent a legal notice for settlement of the dispute and return back the money from their part. The OPs No. 1 to 3 received the notice and had also given reply through their Ld. Advocate Mr. Ashok Kumar Panja by stating all fact but they also denied that the vendors have had handed over the possession. In the above circumstances, complainants pray for passing the order against the Opposite Party No. 1 to 4 for refunding  Rs. 14,90,000/- (Fourteen Lakh Ninety thousand) consideration amount, for payment  of damages of Rs. 60,000/- - (Sixty thousand)  as registration costs and Litigation cost of Rs. 25,000/(Twenty Five thousands)  and to pay compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/(Two Lakh) to the complainant and to pass such other order or orders as the Commission may deem fit and proper.

Notices of the case have been served upon the ops. Having received the notices, the ops-1, 2, 3 & 4 appeared in this case and flied written versions in  two separate sets ie one set by ops 1 , 2 & 3 and other by op-4. However, the op -4 did not materially contest the case after filing written version, the case proceeded ex-parte against it. Other ops 5 ,6 ,7 & 8 preferred to see that the case be proceeded ex-parte against them too. Ultimately, the ops 1 ,2& 3 have contested the case . The epitome of the Written Version of ops 1 ,2& 3  can be narrated as follows: The present case is not maintainable in its present form of prayer and in law. All the statements made in complaint are false, imaginary, frivolous, concocted and baseless. The complainants have no reason to file this case. The case is completely malafide, misconceived and illegal.  All the statements made in paragraph no 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 18, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 of the complaint are false, imaginary, vexatious, frivolous and baseless. It is false to say that opposite party no. 4 proposed complainant to purchase land measuring 11.750 decimal in RS plot no. 84/1455, 84/1456, 203 from opposite party no. 1-3 at the rate of Rs 14,90,000/-(Fourteen Lakh Ninety) or opposite party arranged deed writer or opposite party pay Rs. 60,000/or opposite party no. 4, 6 attacked complainants or raised construction or complainant filed MP 638 of 2020 or opposite party filed MP 703 of 2020 or portion of the land acquired by the PWD or op have no possession or opposite parties are made unfair trade practice or opposite party no. 1-3 have to pay entire cost for damages or loss of money or complainant had physical mental loss or complainant sent legal notice for settlement of the dispute or return back of the money or Op no. 1-3 received the notice or Advocate Ashok Kumar Panja in reply denying the vendor have had handed over the possession or they did not give physical possession of the land or they deny the demand of money. The fact is that complainant no. 1 being the purchaser after reasonable enquiry purchased 11.75 decimal land in plot no. RS 97, RS 84/1456 LR 98, RS 203 LR 246 0f mouza Shalika damodarpur, J.L. no. 112, under P.S. Tamluk, Dist - Purba Medinipur from opposite parties no. 1-3 by virtue of registered sale deed dated 13-03-2020 registered at A.D.S.R. Tamluk bearing deed no.300442 of 2020 at the consideration of Rs. 5,50,000/-(Five Lakh Fifty thousand) only. Complainants  themselves made all arrangements of the sale deed with the help of their own appointed deed writer and typist and prepared the sale deed. Opposite party no. 4 did not take  any negotiation in the aforesaid transaction and thereafter payment of aforesaid consideration, opposite party no. 1-3 registered the deed of sale in favour of complainant no.1 and on the same day complainant took possession of the sold  property. LR record prepared in the name of complainant no. 1. Complainants have not pay so called 14,90,000 /to this opposite parties for the aforesaid sale. So called claim is completely illegal and baseless. In that respect Id. Lawyer of opposite parties no. 1-3 replied to the lawyer of complainant and the same was admittedly received. As such so called claim of this complaint is illegal, baseless.As per statements of the complaint, the complainants are not consumer of this opposite parties within the meaning Consumer u/s 2(7) of the Consumer protection Act, 2019, as complainant did not buy 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 of 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 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 who avails of such service for any commercial purpose from the this opposite parties. Complainant suppressing material facts filed this case with false imaginary baseless statement and illegal claim which not at all maintainable in the present forum. In the aforesaid circumstances this case is liable to be  dismissed however,  opposite parties no. 1-3 are entitled to get cost of the litigation.

Points for determination are:                                                            

1. Is the case maintainable in its present form and in law?

2. Are the Complainant entitled to the relief(s) as sought for?

Decision with reasons

Both the points, being inter related to each other, are taken up together for discussion  for sake of brevity and  convenience.

We have carefully perused and assessed the affidavit of the complainant, written version filed by ops-1 ,2& 3, evidence of both contesting parties and other documents. We have anxiously considered the arguments advanced by the Ld. counsel of rival parties.

The instant case has been filed under the provisions of the CP Act 1986. In view of provision of section 107(1) of the C P Act,2019 ,  the C P Act 1986 has been repealed. In view of provision of section 107(2) of the C P Act,2019 , notwithstanding such repeal , any action taken under the Act 1986 deemed to have been done under the present Act, 2019. The rival parties have strenuously argued on the issue of maintainability of the case. Now, in terms of section 7( I) of the C P Act,2019 the Consumer means any person who buys any goods for consideration…..In view of  section 2( 21) of the C P Act,2019 goods means every kind of movable property..In the instant case the complainants have alleged that  the ops 1 ,2 & 3 in connivance with other ops have sold some land situated in plot No. 84/1455, 84/1456, 203 and corresponding  to L.R 97, 98, 246 area measuring 11.750 Dec. Land , immovable property can not be termed as goods  in terms of section 2( 21) of the C P Act,2019. In such a situation , the complainant can not be treated as consumer.

Now, it appears that the complainant have alleged reliefs basing on twofold mischief s  viz ‘deficiency in service’ and  ‘unfair trade practice’ . The alleged acts or omission on the part of the ops do not fall within the definition of ‘service’ in terms of section 2( 42 ) of the C P Act,2019 and ‘unfair trade practice’  in terms of section 2( 47 ) of the C P Act,2019. The ops are not service provider  in terms of section 2( 37 ) ( ii) (a) of the C P Act,2019. Transfer  of land, immovable property can not be treated as sale of goods. Therefore, the complainants have failed to bring home the elements of twofold mischief s  viz ‘deficiency in service’ and  ‘unfair trade practice’ against the ops.

On careful evaluation of the materials on record ,it appears that there are allegations of cheating against the ops which is a  subject matter of investigation by appropriate  authority; on the other hand there is assertion on the part of the ops that the complainants had got possession of the property after sale ,the name of the complainant no-1 has been recorded in the LR ROR ; according to ops the complainants were subsequently dispossessed . Such a claim and counter claim  may  be decided by a Competent Civil Court .  In view of above discussion ,we find that the instant case is not maintainable in its present form and in law before this Commission. Thus , the complainants are not entitled to get any relief in this case.

 Accordingly, both the issues are decided against the complainants.

Thus, the case does not succeed.

Hence, it is

O R D E R E D

That CC/112 of 2021 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the ops 1 ,2 & 3 and dismissed ex-parte against ops 4 ,5 ,6,7 & 8.

No order as to costs is passed.

Let a copy of the judgment be supplied to the complainant and the ops 1 ,2& 3  of cost.