HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT MANDAL, PRESIDENT

1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 30/08/2022 passed by the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata, Unit IV, West Bengal ( in short, ‘the District Commission’) in connection with complaint case No. CC/03/2021.

2. By the impugned order Learned District Commission has dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant / appellant.

3. The appellant / complainant filed one complaint case before Learned District Commission praying for the following reliefs :-

“i) Direct the respondent to complete his unfinished works which includes majhia / cemented flooring at the staircase and at the front portion of the entrance of the building and iron made railing at the edge of staircase and white wash / paint at the building;

ii) Direct the respondent to provide your petitioner completion certificate and sanction plan of the premises;

iii) Direct the respondent to pay a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- (rupees five lacs) only for harassing your petitioner and making him suffer from mental agony and damaging his reputation which causes him professional loss;

iv) Direct any further order or orders as your Honour may deem fit and proper for the ends of justice.”

4. The opposite party / respondent entered appearance in this case and contested the case by filing written version.

5. Both the parties filed their respective evidence on affidavit, exchanged interrogatories and also filed brief notes of arguments.

6. Learned District Commission heard the case and after hearing dismissed the complaint case vide impugned order dated 30/08/2022.

7. Being aggrieved by the said order of dismissal, the appellant / complainant has preferred this appeal.

8. It is submitted by the Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant that the impugned order dated 30/08/2022 passed by the Learned Commission below in connection with complaint case No. CC/03/2021 suffers from gross errors and non application of judicial mind. He has further submitted that the evidence on record does not justify the dismissal of the appellant’s case. He has further submitted that Learned Commission below passed the impugned order without considering the facts and situations in its entirety and without applying its judicial mind and without considering the procedure as established by law and did not follow the spirit and substance of the law of our land. He has further submitted that the appeal should be allowed and the impugned judgment / order dated 30/08/2022 is liable to be set aside.

9. We have heard the Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant and have perused the memo of appeal and the impugned order.  The appellant has filed the copy of the tenancy agreement dated 06/07/2022 executed between the parties and one Mrs. Sreejan Bibi. The copy of the said tenancy agreement dated 06/07/2022 discloses that the complainant has been described as tenant under the said Sreejan Bibi and the said agreement shall be governed as per West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 as amended  up to date.  The said tenancy agreement  also discloses that the appellant / complainant would purchase the flat in question from the respondent / opposite party and the said flat in question was a ready flat and talk of sale was going on  between the parties of this appeal in respect of the said ready flat. The said copy of tenancy agreement also discloses that there is no whisper in the said agreement that the said building would be constructed and / or the said building was under construction. Rather it has been mentioned in the said agreement that the construction of the building was completed. Therefore, it can be held that the construction of the building as well as construction of the flat was already completed.

10. Record also goes to show that the complainant did not file any deed of conveyance executed if any, in his favour in respect of the said flat in question.

11. Under this facts and circumstances and on consideration of the materials on record, we hold that the complainant being a tenant cannot claim relief(s) under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and his legal right is not enforceable in law in respect of her tenancy before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.

12. We further hold that a purchaser or buyer of a ready flat accompanied by hiring or availing of any service cannot be termed as a ‘consumer’ under the Consumer Protection Act. This transaction is a simplicitor sale transaction.

13. In view of the above discussions and looking into the contents of the copy of tenancy agreement dated 06/07/2022 executed between the parties and Sreejan Bibi, it appears that the appellant is not a ‘consumer’ under section 2(7) and opposite party / respondent is not a service provider under section 2(6) and 2(42) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

14. Therefore, the impugned order dated 30/08/2022 passed by the Learned District Commission is legal and valid and is sustainable in the eye of law and the said order is liable to be affirmed.

15. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed in limini and the order dated 30/08/2022 passed by the Learned District Commission is hereby confirmed.

16. There is no order as to costs of this appeal.

17. The appeal is thus disposed of.