Hon’ble Mrs. Soma Bhattacharjee, Member
The memorandum of appeal has been filed by Sri Amit Kr. Paria, Appellant against M/s. Sthapatya Construciton and Ors. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by Ld. DCDRC, Kolkata, Unit-I (North) in CC/344/2019 dismissing the complaint case in limine, appellant preferred this appeal.
The facts of the complaint case are as follows:
The Appellant / Complainant being a service holder intends to buy one car for his personal use but due to scarcity of space in his own house he needs a garage in an around his residence, for parking his car which he intends to purchase. The OP/respondent no. 1 being a proprietorship concern, entered into a development agreement through his proprietress, respondent no.2 and OP nos. 3 to 7 to construct a 3 storied building in premises no. 11/1A Dumdum Road, Kolkata 30 P.S. Sinthee consisting of several flats and garages. After execution of the development agreement the owners of the aforesaid property jointly executed and registered power of attorney in favour of OP no. 2 Smt. Sonali Bhattacharya for the purpose of all necessary work relating to the proposed building and to negotiate with the intending purchasers of the proposed building.
The appellant / complainant, due to his personal need of his garage, entered into an agreement for sale on 18th May, 2016 for purchase of one covered garage measuring about 120 sq. ft. carpet area, in the ground floor west side of the said premises out of the developer’s allocation. He paid an earnest money of Rs. 2,00,000/- for purchase of the garage.
Heard the submissions of the Ld. Lawyers for the appellant and the respondents. Considered.
It appears that the Ld. DCDRF, Kolkata Unit I dismissed the complaint case on the ground that “since agreement was made simpliciter for purchasing a garage, therefore, we hold that the allegation of the complainant cannot come within the purview of the provision as laid down under C.P. Act for deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and thereby we hold that the case filed by the complainant is misconceived one and the same is dismissed in limine.”
As per Section 2(i)(o) of C.P. Act, 1986 ‘service’ means service of any description which is made available to potential [users and includes, but not limited to, the provision of] facilities in connection with banking, financing, insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, board or lodging or both, [housing construction]......”
Booking of a garage alone, that is, which is not alongwith purchase of a residential flat, is not a service in terms of C.P. Act 1986.
The Appellant / Complainant is, therefore, not a consumer in terms of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Hence, in this case there is no deficiency on the part of the Respondent / Opposite parties.
The impugned order is therefore not illegal. It is upheld and the appeal is dismissed on contest, without any order as to costs.
The Appeal no. A/803/2019 is dismissed on contest and hereby disposed of. Let a copy of this order be provided to each of the parties free of cost.
