1.         Smt. Manasi Panja,

            daughter of late Kanailal Panja,

            resident of 9, Sarada Chatterjee Lane,

            P.S. Bantra, District – Howrah.

2.         Smt. Gitashree Pal,

            wife of Sri Tarun Kumar Paul, resident of 30/1A, Harish Chatterjee Street, Kolkata – 700026.---------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANTS.

-          Versus   -

Riajul Haque,

son of late Anarul Haque, resident of 24/2, Jola Para Masjid Lane, P.S. & District – Howrah, Howrah – 711101.-------------------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTY.

                                                P    R    E     S    E    N     T

President     :     Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.

Member      :      Shri P.K. Chatterjee.

Member       :     Smt. Jhumki Saha.

                                                 F  I   N   A    L       O   R   D    E     R

1.                  The instant case was filed by complainants U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986

wherein the complainants have  prayed for direction upon the o.p. to deliver possession of the 'A' schedule flat and to pay Rs. 6,50,000/- as mentioned  in Schedule 'B' together with Rs. 1 lac as compensation for mental pain and agony. They have  also prayed for litigation cost for Rs. 50,000/- as the o.p. did not deliver the flat and the agreed sum in violation of the agreement dated 21-10-2009.

2.                  The o.p. in the written version contended interalia that the complainants are  

not entitled to get any relief from the Consumer Court as they are  not the consumers within the meaning of the Act and there occurred no deficiency in service. So the complaint should be dismissed.

3.         Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :

i)          Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.  ?

ii)                  Whether the complainants are  entitled to get any relief as prayed for ? 

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

4.      Both the points are  taken up together for consideration. It appears from the

agreement dated 21-10-2009 that the o.p. approached the complainants to develop the land owned by the complainants. Accordingly, the agreement was executed by virtue of a deed of development agreement. It was settled that the o.p. shall give Rs. 6 lacs in cash to the owners and two rooms including dinning space, kitchen, bath cum privy and toilet in the ground floor of the proposed building. As the o.p. turned a deaf ear to the request of the complainants advocate's  notice through registered post was sent on 10-10-2012 but that returned unclaimed.

5.      The argument put forward on behalf of the o.p. that the complainants being  land

owners cannot be  'Consumers' within the meaning of the  Consumer Protection Act, 1986, cannot stand at all in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2008 CTJ 1038. Basically it was a case for construction of an apartment by the builder in terms of the contract. There was a consideration for such contract flowing from the land owner to the builder in the form of sale of an undivided share in the land. Naturally the land owners can claim that they are consumers and the builder in our considered opinion is the service provider.         

6.      In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court we are of the view that this is a

fit case where the prayer of the complainants shall be allowed. Both the points are accordingly decided.

      Hence,

O     R     D      E      R      E        D

      That the C. C. Case No. 156 of 2012 ( HDF 156 of 2012 )  be  allowed on contest with  costs  against  the O.P. 

      The O.P. be directed to deliver the possession of the self-contained flat as mentioned in the Schedule 'A' and to pay back the sum of Rs. 6,50,000/- as mentioned in the Schedule 'B' to the complainants together with statutory interest thereon and to execute the deed of conveyance within 30 days from the date of this order

      The o.p. do also pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- for causing mental pain and prolonged harassment to the complainants.

      The complainants are also entitled to a litigation cost of Rs. 5,000/-.

      The complainants are at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.

      Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.

DICTATED  &    CORRECTED

BY   ME.  

  (    T.K. Bhattacharya  )                                              

  President,  C.D.R.F.,Howrah.