Date of Filing :    06.01.2020

Date of Disposal: 07.01.2020

This complaint is filed by the complainant u/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice against the OPs as the OPs did not delivered the possession in the questioned flat after execution of the Sale Deed in favour of the complainant till filing of this complaint. The complainant has prayed for litigation cost and compensation.

Today is fixed for admission hearing of this complaint. The Ld. Counsel for the complainant is present by filing Hazira. At the time of hearing on the point of admissibility of the complaint it is detected by us that the annexures i.e. money receipts as filed by the complainant were issued in the name of Atish Dey by the OP. Not only single, entire money receipts were issued in the name of Shri Atish Dey. But this complaint is filed by Shri Dibakar Dey. During admission hearing the Ld. Counsel for the complainant has stated that Atish Dey being the son of Shri Dibakar Dey went to pay the installments towards the consideration of the flat to the OPs and due to this reason the OPs have issued the money receipts in the name of Shri Atish Dey instead of Shri Dibarkar Dey. It is crystal clear from the documents as filed by the complainant that Shri Atish Dey has hired and/or availed of services from the OPs not by Shri Dibakar Dey. Therefore, Shri Dibakar Dey cannot be a complainant/consumer under the definition of Consumer as enumerated in the C.P. Act, 1986.

Going by the foregoing discussion hence it is ordered that this complaint being no.CC/06/2020 cannot be maintainable which is filed in the name of Shri Dibakar Dey and it dismissed without being admitted.

However the complainant is at liberty to file afresh after removal of all defects before the appropriate Court/Forum/Commission, if not barred otherwise.

Let plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost as per the CPR, 2005.

Dictated & Corrected by

[Hon’ble MRS. Silpi Majumder]

MEMBER