HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT MANDAL, PRESIDENT

1. The complainant Smt. Uma Bhattacharjee filed the complaint against the opposite party M/s. Megalink Construction for deficiency in service due to failure to perform contractual obligation and liability.

2. The complainant has filed the instant complaint case praying for the following reliefs :-

“a) The opposite party not to proceed in future in accordance to the Development Agreement and Development Power of Attorney executed and registered on 22.04.2015 as the same was inoperative and void ab initio by the act and conduct of the opposite party herein.

b) The opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- on account of compensation and for mental agony owing to deliberate deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party;

c) Rs.50,000/- for litigation cost;

d) Further relief or reliefs as the complainant is entitled to get in law.”

3. Heard the Learned Advocate appearing for the complainant on the point of admission.

4. Having heard the Learned Advocate appearing for the complainant and on careful perusal of the record and the petition of complaint and other documents it appears to me that the complainant has prayed for declaration to the effect that the opposite party not to proceed in future in accordance to the Development Agreement and Development Power of Attorney executed and registered on 22.04.2015 as the same was inoperative and void ab initio and by the act and condition of the opposite party and other consequential reliefs that means the complainant has prayed for declaratory relief. In the result, I think that the complainant has prayed for declaratory relief which cannot be decided by this Commission.

5. Learned Advocate appearing for the complainant in support of his argument has referred to provision of section 49(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. I think that the said section does not apply in the instant case as because section 49(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 only provides that a State Commission may declare in terms of contract which is unfair to any consumer to be null and void. In this particular case the complainant has not prayed for declaration in respect of ‘any terms of the contract’ but he prayed for declaration in respect of the terms and conditions of the Development Agreement and Power of Attorney.

6. Reliance placed by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner on the decision passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab in connection with Hardesh Mehta Vs. Parkwood Developers Pvt. Ltd. in connection with consumer complaint No. 07 of 2021 is misplaced, since the facts of the present case are dissimilar.

7. Under this facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the complaint case is not maintainable in law and is liable to be dismissed.

8. In the result, the complaint case is dismissed without being admitted.

9. The complainant is at liberty to move before the proper Forum to get such relief.

10. The consumer complaint is thus disposed of accordingly.