ORDER NO. 3 DT. 10.03.2011

HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. P.K.SAMANTA, PRESIDENT

Revisionist through Mr. B.Prasad and the OP through Mr. S.Nayak, Ld. Advocates, are present.

The OP has come up with revision before this Commission against the order dt. 22.9.10 passed by the North 24 Parganas District Consumer Forum.  The said order has been passed on the application filed by the OP challenging the maintainability of the complaint case.  By the aforesaid order it has been held that the complaint is maintainable under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Evidently the complainant was the owner of the property in question as mentioned in “A” Schedule to the complaint petition.  The said property was transferred by a registered deed of conveyance dt. 12.5.08 in favour of the OP.  On the self-same date an agreement was entered into by and between the parties whereby the OP agreed to transfer the “B” Schedule shop room as mentioned in the complaint petition in favour of the complainant upon development without any consideration.  Accordingly, it has been urged on behalf of the OP that upon transfer of the “A” Schedule property in favour of the OP he became an owner thereof and since the subsequent agreement between the parties created an obligation upon the OP to transfer the aforesaid “B” Schedule property in favour of the complainant without any consideration, there was no relationship of consumer in between the parties nor any question of providing any service to the complainant by the OP in lieu of consideration emerged therefrom and, therefore, the complaint case was not maintainable. 

It appears from the materials on record that on the self-same date, i.e. 12.5.08, the aforesaid transfer deed and the agreement as above were entered into by and between the parties.  Therefore, it is necessary to find out whether the agreement as aforesaid and the deed of conveyance compliment each other for the purpose of creating a relationship between the parties for developing the “A” Schedule property by the OP and thereafter transferring the “B” Schedule property to the complainant.  In the absence of the deed of conveyance and without going into the evidence of the respective parties it is difficult to find out the real purpose and intention of the parties in creating the aforesaid deed of conveyance and the agreement as above. It would, therefore, not be proper to decide the question of maintainability of the complaint case at this stage.  We, therefore, dispose of the aforesaid Revisional Application by setting aside the finding made by the Forum below that the complaint case is maintainable and further by holding that the maintainability of the complaint case would be decided afresh at the final hearing of the same and after the parties have led evidence in the matter.  The Revisional Application is thus disposed of.