HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT MANDAL, PRESIDENT

1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 06.02.2024 passed by the Learned Addl. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajarhat (New Town) (in short, ‘the Addl. District Commission’) in connection with complaint case No. RBT/CC/101/2022.  By the order impugned the Learned Addl. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has dismissed the complaint case filed by the complainant.
2. The appellant being a complainant filed a complaint case before the Learned Addl. District Commission being No. RBT/CC/101/2022 praying for the following reliefs :-

“i)The Opposite parties No. 1 & 2 jointly or severally be directed to transfer the shop room in favour of the complainant by executing a Deed of Sale and to perform their duties as per the Agreement for Sale.

ii)The Opposite Party No. 1 and the Opposite Party No. 2 jointly or severally be directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,00,000.00to the Complainant/Petitioner as compensation on account of mental agony, pain, anxiety and unnecessary harassment created on the part of the Opposite Party No. 1 and 2.

iii) The Opposite Party No.1 and the Opposite Party No. 2 jointly or severally be directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000.00 to the Complainant/Petitioner as litigation cost.

iv) Any other relief/reliefs to which the Complainant/Petitioner is entitled to get under law, equity and natural justice.”

3. Notices were duly served upon the opposite parties and the opposite parties entered appearance in this case and contested the case by filing written version.
4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the materials available on record the Learned Addl. District Commission dismissed the complaint case on merit against the opposite parties without any costs.
5. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned order the appellant/complainant has preferred the instant appeal under hearing.

6. The Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant has urged that the Learned Addl. District Commission below erred both in law and in fact at the time of passing of the impugned judgement.
7. He has further urged that  the impugned order is otherwise bad in law passed by the Learned Addl. District Commission and the Addl. District Commission has acted illegally and with material irregularity at the time of passing the judgement dated 06.02.2024 under appeal by the Learned Addl. District Commission in connection with RBT/CC/101/2022.

8. The Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant further urged that the judgement passed by the Learned Addl. District Commission below is liable to be set aside.
9. The Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant has prayed for to set aside the impugned order.

10. I have  heard  the Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant and have perused the memo of appeal and  the impugned order.
11. The appellant has filed a xerox copy of agreement for sale dated 17.03.2017.  On perusal of the said copy of agreement for sale it appears to me that the complainant and the opposite parties entered into an agreement for sale of a shop room measuring 365 sq.ft. super built up area including one toilet on the ground floor of premises No. 119/1, Bandhab Nagar Colony in Ward No. 9 under South Dum Dum  Municipality, P.S. Dum Dum, Kolkata – 700 028, North 24 Parganas at a consideration of  Rs. 8,00,000/- ( Rupees eight lakh only).
12. It also transpires from the said Agreement for Sate dated 17.03.2017 that the complainant/appellant paid Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakh only) by cash/cheque at the time of execution of the said Agreement for Sale as an advance to the opposite parties.
13. It also transpires from the said Agreement for Sale that the complainant/appellant is in possession of the said shop room and the opposite parties handed over the same to the complainant/appellant and the complainant took the possession of the said shop room.

14. Under this facts and circumstances, it appears to me that the agreement was executed for sale of a shop room. There is no housing construction or development work involved in the matter.  This is nothing but an Agreement for Sale of a shop room. Therefore, the case is related to the simplicitor sale.  This is nothing but an agreement of a shop room related to simplicitor sale and the complainant cannot be treated as a consumer under section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and the opposite party is also not a service provider. The relationship between the complainant and the opposite parties is simply termed as purchaser and seller. The dispute is not a consumer dispute. The complainant has not availed any service as per provision of section 2(42) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
15. In Ganeshlal  Vs. Shyam reported in (2014) 14 SCC 773, Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that :-

 “Where a sale of plot of land simplicitor is concerned, and if there is any complaint, the same would not be coverned under the Consumer Proteciton Act.”

16. In Brig. Davinder Singh Grewal and Anr. –Vs- R.S. Real Estate and Anr. reported in Volume III (2017) CPJ 304 (NC) Hon’ble National Commission has observed thus :

     “In the instant case, it is manifestly clear that the agreement entered between the parties related to purchase of agricultural land, for which payment was made by the complainants to the OP sellers and a registered agreement as well as sale-deed were also executed. The OPs were supposed to provide a pucca passage to the said land and to deliver the possession after 42 months of the agreement. It is clear that the said activity does not fall under any item in the definition of ‘service’ as per Section 2(0) of the Act.”

17. In view of the above decisions and looking to the contents of the deed of Agreement for Sate dated 17.03.2017 executed between  the parties, it appears that  the transactions between the parties is simplicitor sale transaction.  Therefore, the appellant is not a consumer u/s 2(7) and the opposite party is not a service provider u/s 2(6) and 2(42) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
18. The Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant in support of his argument has relied upon the decision reported in 1993 1 CPR 468.  However, reliance on this judgement in the adjudication of this appeal, facts being at variance, would be misplaced.

19. Therefore, the impugned order dated 06.02.2024 passed by the Learned Addl. District Commission is legal and valid and is sustainable in the eye of law and the said order is liable to be affirmed.
20. Hence, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed and the impugned order dated 06.02.2024 passed by the Learned Addl. District Commission is confirmed. There will be no order as to costs of this appeal.

21.  The appeal is thus disposed of accordingly.