Order No. 2

Ld. Advocate for the complainant is present.

The case is taken up for admission hearing.

Perused and considered the complaint application along with the photo copies of the documents.

Heard Ld. Advocate for the complainant.

The case of the complainants is that the opposite party no.1 is the owner / developer of Highland Group and opposite party nos.2 and 3 are the office bearers of the opposite party no.1. The opposite party no.1 has started construction one residential-cum-commercial project under the name and style ‘Kolkata Riverside’ at 1, New Bata Road, Police Station – Maheshtala, Kolkata – 700 140, Dist 24 Parganas (South). The commercial area in the said Kolkata Riverside project was earmarked and named as ‘Highland Esplanade’. The complainants jointly on payment of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) only as application money booked one shop room in the commercial project namely ‘Highland Esplanade’. The opposite party no.1 vide allotment letter dated 01/01/2022 allotted shop room no.G-49 in Block No.1 at Highland Esplanade in favour of the complainants for a total consideration of Rs.28,20,002/- (Rupees twenty eight lakh twenty thousand and two) only. Thereafter the complainants further paid Rs.2,22,330/- (Rupees two lakh twenty two thousand three hundred and thirty) only to opposite party no.1 on 11/02/2022.

Subsequently, the opposite party no.1 dropped the project ‘Highland Esplanade’ and informed the complainants that they would refund the money within 3 months. According to the complainants in spite of repeated demands the opposite parties have not refunded the amount paid by them.  In such circumstances, the complainants have been compelled to file the instant case on the prayer of refund of the money paid by them along with interest and other reliefs.

Today, Ld. Advocate files authorization letter issued by complainant no.1 authorizing complainant no.2 to look after the complaint case being no.CC/35/2024 and to sign all applications filed or to be filed in respect of the aforementioned case and to affirm all affidavit, verification etc. on his behalf and submit the same before this Commission.

This authorization letter bears no date but from simple reading of the authorization letter inference can safely be drawn that after filing of complaint case being no.CC/35/2024, complainant no.1 issued this authorization letter in favour of the complainant no.2.

On further scrutiny we find that complainant no.1 no where signed in the complaint application.

The affidavit annexed with the complaint reveals that complainant no.2 stated that she had been authorized by complainant no.1 but at the time of filing the complaint case no authorization letter of complainant no.1 has been submitted.

The fact of the complaint reveals that both the complainants booked a shop room in the commercial project under the name and style ‘Highland Esplanade’ and paid earnest money to the tune of Rs.2,72,330/- (Rupees two lakh seventy two thousand three hundred and thirty) only on different dates. Nowhere in the complaint it has been mentioned that the complainants shall run business at the said shop by means of self employment. It is needless to mention that a place of business has direct nexus with generating profit. There is no pleading by the complainants to exclude the commercial purpose in this case.

In such circumstances, we have no hesitation to hold that the complainants are not consumer in terms of Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Therefore, the complaint is not maintainable in law.

Hence, it is

O R D E R E D

that the complaint case be and the same is dismissed without cost.