West Bengal

Howrah

CC/16/99

AWADESH KUMAR BURNWAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

Smt. Kamala Das, - Opp.Party(s)

Subir Kumar Biswas & Sougata Koley

10 Mar 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM HOWRAH
20, Round Tank Lane, Howrah 711 101.
Office (033) 2638 0892, Confonet (033) 2638 0512 Fax (033) 2638 0892
 
Complaint Case No. CC/16/99
 
1. AWADESH KUMAR BURNWAL
S/O late Sukdee Lal Burnwal, 27, Raj Ballav Saha 2nd Bye Lane, P.S. and Dsit Howrah
2. Shib Shankar Gupta,
S/O Sri Rjendra Guptam 66/14, Atindra Mukherjee Lane, P.S. Shibpur Dist Howrah
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Smt. Kamala Das,
W/O late Prasanta Kumar Das, 17/3/2, Beheri Lal Bas Paramanick Lane, P.S. Bantra, Dist Howrah 711 101
2. Pratap Das,
S/O late Prasanta Kumar Das, 17/3/2, Beheri Lal Bas Paramanick Lane, P.S. Bantra, Dist Howrah 711 101
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. Shri Bhim Das Nanda PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. Smt. Jhumki Saha MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:Subir Kumar Biswas & Sougata Koley, Advocate
For the Opp. Party:
ORDER

Order No. 2                                            Date :  10.03.2016.

          Heard the ld. counsel for the petitioners who filed this case stating that they are renowned developers and carry out various construction works.

          Here the o.ps. approached the petitioners to  make multistoried building on their land resulting which an agreement for development as well as  power of attorney were made on 29.12.2014 and the same were registered and the petitioners paid a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- for the shifting of tenants. Now the o.ps. illegally revoked  the registered power of attorney and registered development agreement unilaterally which was illegal and so the petitioners filed this case.    

          This Forum scrutinized the petition along with documents filed therein and finds that the petitioners paid the court fees as well as the petition is well written the period of limitation but while considering the fact as to  whether the petitioners are consumers, then this Forum finds that the petitioners declared themselves as renowned promoters and they made agreement for construction of multi storied  building on the land of the o.ps. and the o.ps. cancelling such agreement as well as power of attorney,  the petitioner filed this case when the petitioner can never be consumer under the definition of  C.P. Act, 1986 which defines that a consumer is one who purchases goods for private use or consumption and particularly speaking the definition includes anyone who consumes goods and services on payment of consideration.

          Our Supreme Court also in the case of Morgan Stanley Mill Fund vs. Kartick Das opined that every man who pays money as the price or cost of goods and service is a consumer. 

          In the instant case the petitioner not coming under the purview of the definition of consumer and thus the dispute not being a consumer dispute is not maintainable before this Forum. Thus the petition is rejected.

          The petitioners are given liberty to file the case before the proper Forum.

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Shri Bhim Das Nanda]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Smt. Jhumki Saha]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.