Date – 07.03.2022

SRI  SWADES  RANJAN  RAY

                                 President

After publishing notice in daily newspaper, Opposite Parties remained absent without any step. Hence, this complaint case is preceded ex parte against all the Opposite Parties.

Facts of this case, in short, is that the Complainant is tenant under Opposite Parties in respect of a shop room and a workshop on the ground floor and tenant in respect of entire 1^st floor.

That in the year 2014, Opposite Parties got sanction Plan from K.M.C. in vide No. 2014040004 dated 22.04.2014 and constructed the multi storied building by demolishing old building.

That the sanction Plan obtained by Opposite Parties without knowledge of Complainant.  As a result, complainant filed a Title suit before 10^th Bench, City Civil Court and said Title suit was ended on compromise decree vide Title suit No.-35643 of 2014.

That the Opposite Parties did not comply the terms of compromise decree after completion of construction multi storied building.

Hence, this complaint case,

Points for decision

1. Whether Complainant has any cause of action to file this case or not?
2. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of  Opposite Parties or not?
3. Whether Complainant will entitle to get any relief / reliefs as prayed for or not?

Decision with reason

All these points are taken up together for sake of convenience and brevity.

I have carefully perused the petition of complaint, evidence of Complainant in form of affidavit, Brief Note of Argument (BNA) and Compromise Decree passed by 10^th Bench, City Civil Court and hold that the Complainant only case is that Opposite Parties are failed to comply the terms of Compromise decree and the Opposite Parties are bound by the terms of the compromise decree and accordingly, Opposite Parties are bound to execute deed of conveyance in respect of Schedule -C1, C2 and C3 of the petition of complaint.

So, I hold that it is a clear violation of terms of the compromise decree passed by the Ld. 10^th Bench, City Civil Court.

Hence, in my view, Complainant is not come under the purview of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and Complainant is not consumer under Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and I further hold that Complainant has no cause of action under Protection Act, 2019.

Moreover, this District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission is not an executing Court under the Ld. 10^th Bench, City Civil Court.  Hence, Complainant approaches for relief before the wrong Forum.

All the points disposed of accordingly.

In the result, this complaint case fails.

Court Fee paid correct.

Hence, it is,

                                               O R D E R E D

that the complaint case be and the same is dismissed ex parte against all the Opposite Parties.

No order as to cost.

Hence, this complaint case is disposed of accordingly.

Let a copy of this judgement be handed over to the Complainant at free of cost.