DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
NORTH 24 Pgs., BARASAT.
C. C. NO- 449/2018
Date of Filing: Date of Disposal:
26.11.2018 30.11.2018
Complainant :- 1. Shri Lakshmi Kanta Shee,
Son of Late Surendra Nath Shee,
2. Smt. Sarbani Shee
Wife of Shri Lakshmi Kanta Shee,
Both are by faith Hindu, Nationality Indian,
By occupation is no 1 is in service and
no 2 is Housewife, both are residing at
Megho mallar, 14/1 Ghosh Para Road,
Flat no- 10-B, 3rd Floor, Kolkata 700120
P.O- Barrackpore, P.S- Titagarh
=Vs=
Opposite Parties:- 1. M/s Castle High Rise Pvt. Ltd.
Having its registered office at 38(21),
S.M.P Sarani, P.O- Barrackpore,
P.S- Titagarh, District- North 24 Parganas
2. Smt. Rina Singha Roy,
Widow of late Shib Sankar Singha Roy,
of Telinipara, P.O- Seweli Telinipara,
P.S- Titagarh, District- North 24 Parganas
3. Smt. Mamata Ghosh,
Widow of Late Pradip Kumar Ghosh
Residing at
Flat B-3, 2nd floor,
Manjulika Apartment, S.M.P Sarani,
P.O- Barrackpore, P.S- Titagarh,
District- North 24 Parganas, Kolkata- 700120
4. Shri Amit Kumar Basu,
Son of Shri Samir Kumar Bose,
Of 44/2, Jatin Das Road, Ichapore,
P.S- Noyapara, District- North 24 Parganas,
The Director of Opposite Party no 1 Company,
P.O- Nawabgang
5. Smt. Rita Sen,
Widow of Late Provash Sen,
by failth- Hindu, nationality- Indian,
by occupation- Housewife
Cont……………………..2
:2:
6. Shri Koushik Sen,
Son of late Provash Sen, by faith- Hindu,
nationality- Indian, by occupation Business
7. Smt. Debashree Ghosh,
Wife of Shri Koushik Ghosh,
daughter of late Provash Sen,
by faith- Hindu, nationality- Indian,
by occupation- Housewife,
Nos- 5, 6 and 7 are residing at
38(21)S.M.P Sarani, P.O- Barrackpore,
P.S- Titagarh District- North 24 Parganas
Kolkata- 700120
P R E S E N T
:- Smt. Silpi Majumder ……………………………………Member.
:- Smt. Monisha Shaw …………………………………….Member.
Final Order
The complainants are present.
Today is fixed for hearing on the point of admissibility of the complaint. At the time of advancing argument it is detected that the complainant have entered into an agreement for sale with the OPs for purchasing one flat, one shop room and one car parking space. Admittedly in respect of purchasing flat and car parking space the complainant is a consumer, but regarding purchase of shop room as to whether the complainant is consumer or not, such question is cropped up. Admittedly the complainant is a businessman by profession. For business purpose he intended to purchase the said shop room. Within the four corners of the complaint nowhere it is mentioned by the complainant that for earning his livelihood by means of self-employment the complainant was inclined to purchase this shop room. Due to this reason purchase of shop room by the complainant can easily be termed for commercial purpose. In view of the Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the CP Act, as well as under the definition of ‘Consumer’ as enumerated in the said Act. Due to this reason we are not in a position to admit the complaint as the shop room was intended to purchase for commercial purpose. However the complainant is at liberty to approach before the appropriate Forum by filing complaint, if not barred otherwise.
The complainant is also at liberty to get return the copy of the complaint as well as the documents as filed by at the time of filing from the Office of this Ld. Forum by making an application. Upon receipt of the said application the office of this Ld. Forum is directed to take appropriate step for returning the abovementioned to the complainant in accordance with Law.
Cont……………………..3
:3:
In view of the abovementioned observation the complaint filed by the complainant being no 449/2018 is hereby dismissed without being admitted as the complaint is not partly amenable before this Ld. Forum.
Let plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost as per the CPR, 2005.
Member Member
Dictated & Corrected by
