Order no.   2                                                                                 Date 04.10.2023.

                Today is fixed for Admission Hearing.  Ld. Advocate on behalf of the complainant is present. Heard his submission.  Gone through the documents submitted with the complainant petition.  Complainant’s prayer is to direct the OP to execute and register the flat in question purchased by the complainant in 1994 in his favour.

            Records shows that the complainant purchased the flat in question from the OP, Mrs. Ghoti Devi Agarwal through an un-Registered and non-Notarised Agreement for Sale of Ownership Flat executed between the buyer/complainant and the owner/seller, Mrs. Ghoti Devi Agarwal on 10/09/1994.  It is very astonishing that after a lapse of 29 years purchaser/complainant approached for registration of his purchased flat and his plea is mere paucity of fund !

            From that Agreement for Sale, from the second paragraph in page-2 it is found that: “That the buyer herein desires to purchase a Ownership flat in the said building at seventh floor (Ground plus seven floor) Flat No. 71 from the seller herein …..” (emphasis supplied). There are some terms and conditions written hereunder this paragraph wherefrom we cannot find any sentence about providing any type of service from the seller to the buyer in this 5-page Agreement.  As per Section 2(42) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, “housing construction” has been covered under the definition of “service”.  Here the seller/OP is the landlord of the plot on which the building as well as the said flat in question was constructed and the buyer/complainant purchased the said flat allocated to the owner. So, no “service” in the form of “housing construction” is involved in the instant complainant.  A mere fact of non-registration does not attract any deficiency of “service” under the Act, rather it is case of simple ‘Sale Simpliciter’.  So, considering the observation made in the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 331 of 2007 (Ganeshlal  -Vs-  Shyam), decided on 26/09/2013,  this Commission thinks this complaint is liable to be rejected  for devoid of any merit.

            Hence complaint case No. CC/214/2023 be and the same is rejected being not admitted and without any cost.

Dictated and corrected by me

            Member.