DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESAL COMMISSION
NORTH 24 Pgs., BARASAT.
C.C. No. 246/2024
P R E S E N T :- Sri Daman Prosad Biswas………President.
:- Sri. Abhijit Basu………………. Member.
Order No.01
Dated.18.09.2024
Today is fixed for admission hearing. Ld. Advocate for the Complainant is present. Case is taken up for admission hearing. Heard Ld. Advocate for the Complainant. Perused the petition of complaint and copy of documents.
Complainant alleged that O.P No. 3 published an advertisement regarding sale of a flat and Complainant was interested to purchase the same and paid a lump sum amount.
O.P No. 3 stated that he is joint owner of the said flat with his mother Asha Shaw. Complainant produced copy of one agreement dated 11/06/2019 and on perusal of the said document we find that said agreement was made in favour of Complainant and his mother and O.P No. 1 executed the same.
On perusal of copy of another agreement we find that O.P No. 3 and her mother Asha Shaw executed the said agreement for sale in favour of the Complainant and Complainant paid Rs. 5,60,000/- out of the consideration of Rs. 28,00,000/-.
So it is clear before us that Asha Shaw and Aman Shaw were entered into an agreement for purchase of the subject flat from O.P No. 1.
As per record no sale-deed has been executed in favour of Asha Shaw and Aman Shaw by the O.P No. 1.
So question comes before this Commission as to how Asha Shaw and Aman Shaw entered into the agreement with the Complainant where sale-deed was not executed in their favour.
So it is clear before us that it is a case of re-sale of flat.
In this context we have carefully gone through the decision of Hon’ble N.C.D.R.C (Madanlal Kapur Vs. Sardar Amarjit Singh). We find that Hon’ble N.C.D.R.C held:-
“Admittedly and as per the agreement of sale between the parties, the petitioner had agreed to purchase of a ready flat from the respondent. Thus, there is no element of service involved in the agreement between the parties. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be termed as a "Consumer" and as such he could not have maintained the consumer complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.”
In view of aforesaid decision we are of the firmed view that the present case is not maintainable before this Commission.
Hence,
It is,
Ordered
That the present case be and the same is dismissed being not admitted.
Member President