Ld. Advocate of Complainants is present.

Case is taken up for hearing on the point of admission.

Heard the Ld. Advocate of the Complainants at length.

Perused. Considered.

The main allegation of the Complainants is centering relating to a shop room in question upon which an agreement for sale has been executed on 26.07.2013 in between one Asish Gangopadhyay (alias Ganguli) and OP 1 in one side and  Complainant no. 1 in other side.

Further it may be noted that there is no whisper to the effect that said proposed shop room would be the purpose of earning livelihood of the Complainants, by means of self-employment.

Further it may be noted that measurement of any shop room, may be too small which Ld. Advocate of the Complainants tried to draw attention of this Commission during hearing. But measurement of any shop room is not the criteria, but the expression ‘Commercial Purpose’ to be looked into by this Commission at the very basis, especially in this type of case whether the shop room in question is for commercial purpose or not.

So, this Commission is of the view that as per Section 7 of the C.P. Act, 2019 the status of Complainants cannot come within the ambit of Consumers. Naturally, the dispute in question of this case cannot be termed as ‘Consumer Dispute’.

In view of the above discussion and going through the petition of complaint meticulously this Commission is of the view that even there is no indication prima facie to proceed further with the case.

Thus, instant petition of complaint stands rejected.

Dictated and corrected by

[HON'BLE MR. Shri Sankar Kumar Ghosh]
PRESIDENT