Judgment : Dt.28.7.2017

            This is a complaint made by one (1) Prabir Kumar Sikder, son of Late Satish Chandra Sikder, H/O Manik Lal Datta, 49, Dasnagar Colony, P.O.- Lake Gardens, P.S.-Lake, Kolkata-700 045 and (2) Pradip Sikder, son of Late Satish Chandra Sikder, H/O Manik Lal Datta, 49, Dasnagar Colony, P.O.- Lake Gardens, P.S.-Lake, Kolkata-700 045 against Smt. Krishna Sengupta, W/O Arun Sengupta, constituted attorney of Arun Sengupta, 4/36, Viveknagar, P.S.-Garpha, Kolkata-700 075, praying for (a) possession of flat in terms of the agreement for sale dt.8.10.1099  (b) compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- and (c) litigation cost of Rs.20,000/-.

            Facts in brief are that OP, Smt. Krishna Sengupta, wife of Arun Sengupta is constituted attorney of Arun Sengupta. Complainant purchased a flat at 4/36, Viveknagar, P.S.-Garpha, Kolkata-700 075. Complainant paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards the booking advance. Complainant purchased the flat at a price of Rs.2,18,000/- on 26.7.2000. Balance part payment was paid by Complainant in cash to Smt. Krishna Sengupta. In September, 2000, Complainant asked for possession of the flat. OP denied the possession. On several occasions, Complainant met OP. But of no use. On 13.7.2006 Prakir Kumar Sikder fell sick with cerebral attack. But still possession was not given. So, Complainant filed this case.

            OP, Smt. Krishna Sengupta filed written statement and denied the allegations. The husband of OP died on 7.1.2000 and as such OP lost the force to act as an attorney. The flat was to be of 700 sq.ft. After the death of husband of OP other sons and daughters became heirs. So, OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint petition.

            Decision with reasons

            Complainant filed affidavit-in-chief against which OP filed questionnaires to which Complainant filed affidavit-in-reply. OP filed affidavit-in-chief against which Complainant filed questionnaire and to that OP filed affidavit-in-reply.

            Main point for determination is whether Complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for.

            On perusal of the prayer portion of the complaint petition, it appears that Complainant has prayed for possession of the flat. There is a Xerox copy of agreement for sale filed which reveals that only Smt. Krishna Sengupta has signed. This agreement is of the year 1999. In page 9 Complainants have signed. The agreement was executed on 8.10.1999. Complainant has filed certain OPD receipts in order to establish as to why the delay was caused. Thereafter, it appears that on 24.8.2016 Complainant issued a letter to the OP. This means that after 17 years, Complainant desired to have the possession of the flat. Though they made payment in 1999-2000.

            There is no receipt filed of the payment made by the Complainants. Furthermore, on perusal of the affidavit-in-chief, questionnaire and affidavit-in-reply, it appears that the agreement is between two individuals and accordingly, it does not fall under C. P. Act, for the sake of argument, if it is accepted that there was an agreement for sale, it was between two individuals. There is no material to establish that Complainants are consumers of the OP Smt. Krishna Sengupta. It is because Complainants neither purchased goods not hired services of Smt. Krishna Sengupta.

            As such, we are of the view that Complainant failed to establish the allegations mentioned in the complaint petition.

            Hence ordered

            CC/631/2016 and the same is dismissed on contest.