HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT MANDAL, PRESIDENT

1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 22.02.2024 passed by the Learned Addl. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajarhat (New Town) (in short, ‘the District Commission’) in connection with RBT/CC/184/2022. By the order impugned Learned District Commission has dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant. The appellant being complainant filed a complaint case before the Learned District Commission praying for the following reliefs :-

“a) For direction upon the Opposite Parties to execute and register the Deed of Conveyance in respect of the shop room as mentioned in schedule ‘B’ written hereunder in terms of agreement for sale dated 04.05.2015 in favour of the complainant at their own cost on payment of balance of consideration within the stipulated period as directed by the Ld. Forum. If the Opposite Parties fail to execute and register the Deed of Conveyance in favour of the complainant within the period stipulated by the Ld. Forum, the complainant may be directed for execution and registration of the Deed of Conveyance in their favour through the Ld. Forum;

b) For an order upon the Opposite Parties to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant for his mental pain, harassment and agony.

c) For all costs of the instant case.

d) For other relief or reliefs which the complainant is entitled to.”

2. Notices were duly issued upon the opposite parties. In spite of service of notices none appeared on behalf of the opposite party Nos. 1, 1b, 1c, 1d, 2 to 8. As such, the case was heard ex parte against them by the Learned District Commission.

3. Only the opposite party No. 1a entered appearance in this case and contested the case by filing written version.

4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the materials available on record, the Learned District Commission dismissed the complaint case on merit without any costs.

5. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned order the appellant / complainant has preferred the instant appeal under hearing.

6. The Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant has urged that the judgment passed by the Learned District Commission is without any basis, merit and supported law.

7. He has further urged that the judgment passed by the Learned District Commission is otherwise bad in law.

8. He has further urged that the Learned District Commission erred in law and facts in dismissing the complaint case. As such, Learned Advocate appearing for the complainant has prayed for to set aside the impugned order. I have heard the Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and have perused the memo of appeal and the impugned order. The appellant has filed a copy of agreement for sale of shop room dated 04.05.2015. On perusal of the said copy of agreement for sale of shop room dated 04.05.2015 it appears to me that the opposite party sold away one shop room being No. 3A, on the ground floor admeasuring an area of 100 (one hundred) sq. ft. more or less super built up area in the multi-storied building along with common facilities and amenities on the ground floor together with undivided proportionate share of land situated and lying at premises No. 3, Ananda  Mohan Bose Road  ( Municipal holding No. 3, Ananda Mohan Bose Road) within the local limits of Municipal Ward No. 22 of South Dum Dum Municipality, within the local limits of the Dum Dum Police Station, Kolkata – 700 074, District North 24 Parganas.

9. It also appears on the said agreement for sale that the opposite party handed over the possession of the said shop room to the appellant / complainant. The appellant / complainant took possession of the said shop room.

10. Under this facts and circumstances, it appears to me that the agreement was executed for sale of a shop room. There is no housing construction or development work involved in the matter. This is nothing but an agreement for sale of land. Therefore, the case is related to simplicitor sale. This is nothing but an agreement of shop room related simplicitor sale and the complainant cannot be termed as ‘consumer’ under section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and the opposite party is not also a service provider. The relationship between the complainant and opposite party is simply termed as purchaser and seller. The dispute is not a consumer dispute. The complainant has not availed any service as per provision of section 2(42) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

11. In Ganeshlal Vs. Shyam reported in (2014) 14 SCC 773, Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that :-

“Where a sale of plot of land simplicitor is concerned, and if there is any complaint, the same would not be covered under the Consumer Protection Act.”

12. In Brig. Davinder Singh Grewal and Anr. –Vs- R.S. Real Estate and Anr. reported in Volume III (2017) CPJ 304 (NC) Hon’ble National Commission has observed thus :

“In the instant case, it is manifestly clear that the agreement entered between the parties related to purchase of agricultural land, for which payment was made by the complainants to the OP sellers and a registered agreement as well as sale-deed were also executed. The OPs were supposed to provide a pucca passage to the said land and to deliver the possession after 42 months of the agreement. It is clear that the said activity does not fall under any item in the definition of ‘service’ as per Section 2(0) of the Act.”

13. In view of the above decisions and looking to the contents of the deed of agreement for sale dated 04.05.2015 executed between the parties, it appears that the transactions between the parties is simplicitor sale transaction. Therefore, the appellant is not a consumer U/s 2(7) and O.P. is not service provider U/s 2(6) and 2(42) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

14. Therefore, the impugned order dated 22.02.2024 passed by the Ld. District Forum is legal and valid and is sustainable in the eye of law and the said order is liable to be affirmed.

15. Hence, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed and the impugned order dated 22.02.2024 passed by the Ld. District Commission is confirmed. No order as to the costs of this Appeal.

16. The Appeal is thus disposed of accordingly.