PER JUSTICE J.M. MALIK 1. Counsel for the complainants present. Arguments heard. Smt. Kalpana Poddar & her husband Mr. Mayank Poddar booked two Apartments in a project known as ‘Unitech Cascades’ at Greater Noida, Plot No. 8, Sector P i- II, District Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P., in the year 2006. The apartments bearing No. 1501 & 1502 in Tower 2 on 14th Floor, having a super area of 142.79 sq. mtrs., i.t., (approx.. 1537 sq. ft. each) with bed rooms, hall and kitchen to the complainants were allotted. Both the husband and wife are residing in Calcutta. They own their house in Park Center, 9th Floor, 24 Park Street, Kolkata. Counsel for the complainant orally submits that these two apartments were booked one for Smt. Kalpana Poddar and the other for her daughter. He does not know the name of the daughter. We have also perused the agreement as well. These are also silent and did not mention the name of the daughter. It, therefore, means that the complainants are having as many as one accommodation plus they have booked two other accommodations. 2. The controversy regarding number of accommodations, revolves around the question whether the complainants fall within the definition of Consumer as per Section 2 (1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complaint is conspicuously silent how the complainants are the consumers in this case. Counsel for the complainants admits that no such explanation was given in the complaint itself. There is no such pleading. See authority in the case of “Chilkuri Adarsh Vs. ESS ESS VEE Constructions, III (2012) CPJ 315”. 3. The namby-pamby pleas set up by the complainants are vague, evasive and lead the Commission nowhere. They have not disclosed how much property the complainants own at Kolkata. All the relevant facts are conspicuously missing. 4. At this stage, counsel for the Complainants wants to withdraw this case. The case is, therefore, dismissed as withdrawn. |
