This order is arising out of the MA/51/2020 filed by the OPs in the Consumer Complaint no-30/2021 challenging the maintainability of this complaint. The application is filed by the OPs supported by affidavit with a copy to the Complainant.

On the date of hearing argument on the said MA, the Complainant remained absent without taking any step, but the Ld. Counsel for the OPs was present. Upon receipt of the copy of this MA, the Complainant did not file any written objection thereto. We have perused the content of the said MA and heard argument at length advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the OPs.

In the application it is contended by the OPs that this complaint is not maintainable in the eye of law as it barred by limitation in view of the Section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The cause of action of the instant matter arose in 2016, but the complaint is filed by the Complainant on 27.01.2021, which much later than two years from the date of cause of action. No separate application is filed by the Complainant praying for condonation of delay. On this score alone this complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost, as by filing this complaint the Complainant is intending to harass the OPs unnecessarily and with mal-intention. Moreover there is no privity of contract by and between the Complainant and the OPs, no transaction was made by the Complainant with the OPs. It is the settled legal proposition that ignorance of law cannot save a person and due to ignorance of law the Complainant is not entitled to get any benefit. Based on ignorance of law the Complainant cannot escape his liability regarding violation of law. The OPs did not enter into any sort of contract with the Complainant; no payment was made by the Complainant to the OPs. It is clear from the averment of the petition of complaint that the Complainant cannot be termed as consumer and the OPs are not the service providers. According to the OPs the petition of complaint filed by the Complainant is liable to be dismissed.

From the petition of complaint it is seen by us that the Complainant had obtained membership from the OPs and accordingly received an offer from the OPs regarding purchase of certain plot/land and for this purpose the Complainant had already paid a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- to the concerned person of the OPs-Company. After making such payment the Complainant had enquired the matter about the plot/land and got information that the property was not marketable. The Complainant intimated such information to the OPs and also intimated them that he is not willing to purchase the said plot/land from the OPs. Subsequently he prayed for refund of the paid amount of Rs.1,80,000/-. The Complainant contacted with the OPs on several occasions, but the OPs did not extend their co-operation to this effect to the Complainant and according to the Complainant the OPs were trying to harass him. Inspite of his best efforts the OPs did not pay any heed to his request regarding refund of the paid amount to him. The Complainant issued legal notice to the OPs on 23.11.2020, but the OPs did not reply the same. As the OPs did not take any step to refund the paid amount to him, hence finding no other alternative the Complainant has approached before this Ld. Commission by filing this complaint praying for direction upon the LOPs to refund the paid amount of Rs.1,80,000/- along with other reliefs.

Therefore it is apparent from the application filed by the OPs that the OPs have filed this application only on one issue that the complaint is hopelessly barred by limitation in view of the Section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. But upon going through the entire record as available in our considered opinion that the complaint petition does not hit the limitation on the ground that admittedly for purchasing a land/plot from the OPs the Complainant paid a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- to the OPs. After making payment of the said amount the Complainant came to know that the questioned plot/land is not at all marketable and then and there the Complainant requested the OPs to refund the amount as paid by him. The Complainant has made transaction in writing, but to no effect. Legal notice also was issued, but the OPs did not bother either to reply the same or take any positive step to that effect. Being compelled the Complainant has filed this complaint. So the cause of action which arose in the year 2016 the same is continuing till date until and unless the paid amount will be refunded to the Complainant by the OPs. So this complaint is not barred by limitation as per the Section of the 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

The OPs have submitted that there is no privity of contract by and between the Complainant and the OPs, so the Complainant is not empowered to file this complaint against the OPs. In this respect we are to say if there is no privity of contract then on which strength the OPs have received a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- from the Complainant and for what purpose. If no service was availed of by the Complainant from the OPs, what prompted the Complainant to pay a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- to the OPs. It is palpably clear to us that by making the said amount to the OPs for purchasing a plot/a piece of land; the Complainant had hired service from the OPs. So the Complainant is obviously a consumer within the purview of the definition of ‘Consumer’ as enumerated in the C.P. Act, 2019 and the OPs can be termed as ‘Service Providers’.

In view of the above hence it is ordered that the MA being no-51/2022 is hereby dismissed. There is no order as to cost.

Fix 25.05.2022 for adducing evidence by the Complainant.  

Dictated and Corrected by

[HON'BLE MRS. Silpi Majumder]
MEMBER