Order No. 1                                            Date :  10.03.2016.

Read  the petition lodged under Section 12 of the  C.P. Act, 1986.

Register the case as CC/101/2016. Complainant filed a complaint with a bank draft of Rs. 200/-  bearing no. 313420  dated  10.03.2016 of SBI Howrah.

Later.

          Heard the ld. counsel for the petitioner on the point of admission. The petitioner here submitted that being a developer he ordered for installation of a lift to be installed in the building by the o.p. no. 1 and in the said building and the o.p. no. 2 is owner of a flat. The petitioner paid Rs. 1, 78, 000/- to the o.p. no. 1 for installation of the said lift for which the petitioner / developer entered into an agreement with the o.p. no. 1 and he also filed the money receipt. The agreement between the parties took place in the year 2005 and the o.p. no. 1 received money from the petitioner till 2007.

On scrutiny of the record this Forum finds that even though the cause of action arose long back in 2007 yet this petitioner / developer filed this case in 2016 and there is no continuity of such cause of action. Further the petitioner being a developer of a multi storied building can never be a consumer because as per C.P. Act, 1986 a consumer is one who purchases goods for private use or consumption and when particularly speaking the definition of consumer includes anyone who consumes goods or services at the end of the chain of production and also a beneficiary is a consumer but here the petitioner is not the beneficiary for consumer.

Ld. counsel for the petitioner submitted that he ordered for installation of the lift to the o.p.  1 on behalf of the o.p.  2, flat owners who are consumers in respect of the flats and thus being a representative of the consumers he filed this case which is well maintainable in law.

This Forum on scrutiny of the record finds that a dispute where a person against whom a complaint has been made and that person denies such dispute or allegations then such a dispute is a consumer dispute if the person who alleges is a consumer. Here in the instant case the petitioner being a developer ordered for installation of lift in the multi storied building cannot be a consumer because he developed such property for making profit out of such construction and thus the petitioner not being a consumer and dispute not being a consumer dispute the case is not maintainable before this Forum even though other points like court fees etc. are satisfied.

Hence,

                      O R D E R E D          

          That the petition is rejected as not maintainable.