Khem Chand Singhi,
9, Pollock Street, Room No. B-6,
Kolkata-700001. …….complainant
-VS-
1) Prasanti Properties Pvt. Ltd. (COMPANY)
P-79, Lake, Road, Kolkata-700029.
2) Hemant Kothari,
220/2, Panditia Road Extension, Kolkata-700029.
3) Siddhant Residents Welfare Association
118, Sahapur Main Road, Kolkata-700038. ……Opposite Parties
Order No. 31 Dated 06/09/2016
The case of the complainant in brief is that he purchased one flat measuring 641 sq.ft. at Sahapur Main Road at a consideration price of Rs.6 lakhs and the entire consideration was paid to o.p. nos.1 and 2. After receiving the said consideration price o.p. communicated to the complainant towards letter of delivery of possession and whenever the complainant went to take possession he was resisted by Siddhant Residence Welfare Association. On the basis of the said fact the complainant filed a case praying for refund of money and also for damages.
The o.p. nos.1 and 2 did not appear before this Forum, so the matter was fixed ex parte as against them.
The o.p. no.3 appeared before this Forum and contested the case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations of the complaint. It was stated that the complainant falsely claimed that he purchased one flat on the ground floor of the building. The ground floor of the building is a parking space. The flat owners of the building purchased car parking space on the ground floor. The complainant since stated the false claim regarding purchase of the flat on the ground floor therefore he will be not be entitled to get the relief as prayed for. The complainant is not a consumer of o.p. no.3, so complainant cannot pray for any relief from o.p. no.3. So the case be dismissed as against o.p. no.3.
On the basis of the pleadings of parties the following points are to be decided:
- Whether the complainant purchased any flat in the said building.
- Whether the o.p. no.3 the flat owners have any right in respect of the car parking on the ground floor.
- Is the complainant entitled to get the relief as prayed for.
Decision with reasons:
All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.
Ld. lawyer for the complainant argued that the complainant purchased the ground floor area which is shown in the sanctioned plan as car parking space. The o.p. no.3 there the flat owners of the said building and they have got no right title interest in respect of the said open car parking space. The complaiant purchased the same on payment of consideration and took possession of the same but o.ps. interfered with the said possession for which complainant had to filed this case.
Ld. lawyer for the complainant argued that the complainant had to file a civil suit in a Civil Court and the said suit is still pending for disposal and order of injunction was granted whereby o.ps. have been restrained not to interfere with the possession of the complainant. Ld. lawyer for the complainant has prayed for an order so that the complainant can get the possession of the said property.
Ld lawyer for the o.p. submitted that in the petition of complaint there is no prayer for giving order to the possession of the property. Therefore, the said prayer cannot be allowed.
Considering the submissions of the respective parties it appears that the complainant in the complaint claimed that he purchased one flat by paying Rs.6 lakhs and members of o.p. no.3 created problem regarding the possession of the said property. The complainant has filed this case praying for an order for refund of the money and also for mental harassment. At the time of argument ld. lawyer for complainant submits that the property has already been transferred in favour of the complainant.
Ld. lawyer for the o.p. no.3 has emphasized that the complainant has filed another civil suit and the said suit is pending before the Ld. Civil Judge Senior Division, Alipore whereby the self same points were raised and the complainant also prayed for declaration and injunction and for recovery of possession.
Considering such background of the case we hold that the complainant has suppressed the fact that he took possession of the property which was purchased by him in respect of the ground floor and it is also an admitted fact that the complainant is a resident of Pollok Street, far away from the placed of his residence and therefore it was the intention of the complainant by purchasing the ground floor he wanted to induct the tenants for the purpose of keeping their vehicles in the said premises which can be used by them as garage and the said act on the part of the complainant undoubtedly an act of doing business by taking money from different persons. Therefore, we hold that as per Sec 2(1)(d) the complainant is not a consumer and he will not be entitled to get any relief as sought for.
Having regard to the circumstances of the case we hold that the case of the complainant must fail due to the object of the complainant to give tenants in respect of the ground floor for keeping vehicles to outsiders on a rental basis and accordingly, we hold that the case is not maintainable. Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.
Hence, ordered,
That the CC No.277/2012 is dismissed on contest without cost against the o.ps.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
