Sri Bajrang Lal Sharma,

Son of Bal Mukund Sharma,

Residing at 8, Hazarimal Shah Road, Salkia, P.S. M. P. Ghora,

District –Howrah----------------------------------------------------------  COMPLAINANT.

-          Versus   -

1.         Smt. Saroj Pandey,

            wife of Sri Kailash Pandey,

            residing at 9, Kalupara Lane,

2.         Sri Jai Kumar Gupta,

3.         Sri Sanjoy Kumar Gupta,

4.         Sri Manoj Kumar Gupta,

5.         Sri Binod Kumar Gupta,

6.         Kumari Sumita Gupta,

7.         Kumari Rita Gupta,

8.         Smt. Sarita Gupta,

            w/o. Sri Bharat Pd. Gupta.

9.         Smt. Savita  Gupta,

            wife of Sri Gopal Pd. Gupta,

            nos. 3 to 5 sons and nos. 6 to 9 daughter of

            Jai Kumar Gupta nos. 2 to 9 residing at

            8, Hazarimal Shah Road, Salkia, P.S. M.P. Ghora,

            District – Howrah.----------- ------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTIES.

                                                P   R    E     S    E    N     T

                         1.     Hon’ble President    :     Shri J.  N.  Ray.

                         2.     Hon’ble Member     :      Dr. Dilip Kr. Chakraborty. 

 3.     Hon’ble Member     :      Smt. Samiksha Bhattacharya.

                                C      O      U       N        S        E        L

Representative for the complainant           :   Shri kalipada Barman,

                                                                           Ld. Advocate.

Opposite parties   :    Ex parte.

                                        F  I   N   A    L       O   R   D    E     R

            This is to consider an application U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 filed by one Sri Bajrang Lal Sharma, proprietor of Vishakha Trade Commercial Pvt. Ltd. against the o.ps. namely Saroj Pandey and others alleging deficiency in service.

            The case of the complainant is that he booked a flat of ownership basis measuring about 950 sq. ft. super built up area with the o.ps. lying and situated at the 4^th floor of holding no. 8, Hazarimal Shah Road, Salkia, P.S. M.P. Ghora,  together with undivided proportionate share of the land and right of enjoying of common facilities and assessment for a consideration of Rs. 5,00.000/- and the complainant paid Rs. 5,85,000/- to the o.p. in cash as well as by cheque from the account of complainant’s firm Vishakha Trade Commercial Pvt. Ltd. of which the complainant is the director and the possession of the flat was delivered to the complainant but unfortunately in spite of repeated requests and demands and payment of the total consideration money the o.ps. were playing hide and seek and did not execute  and register the relevant deed of sale in favour of the complainant in respect of the said flat and waiting for them for a considerable period. So the complainant sent advocate’s letter dated 27-01-2009 under registered post with A/D to the o.ps. in spite of service of the notice they did not comply with the same and did not execute and register the deed of sale. Hence the  complaint.

            Notices were duly served upon the o.ps. and o.p. no. 3 only filed written version. Thereafter at the time of hearing all the o.ps. did not turn up and the case was heard ex parte against them.

            O.p. no. 3 by filing written version admitted the booking of flat of ownership basis and the payment was made on behalf of Vishakha Trade Commercial Pvt. Ltd. and also admitted that the complainant is director of the said company. However, the o.p. no. 3 prayed for rejection of the complaint petition with cost.

            At the outset of the argument ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the complainant admitted that the complainant is director of  Vishakha Trade Commercial Pvt. Ltd. and the payment was made on behalf of the said company by cash and cheque respectively. Ld. Advocate also fails to show any sort of paper that the complainant himself has paid the money to the o.ps. for booking the flat. On the contrary the payment papers of records namely receipt go to show that the payment was made on behalf of Vishakha Trade Commercial Pvt. Ltd. to which partner of the firm has accepted the same. The Consumer Protection Act does not permit the director of the company to purchase a flat on behalf of the company under self employment. As a result the definition of consumer goes against the complainant that complainant is not a consumer under the  Act. As the complainant failed to prove the consumer under the C.P. Act is not entitled to get relief from the o.ps. in any way and as such the complainant is not entitled to get cost, damages etc. etc.

            Having heard the ld. Advocate for the complainant we are of the view that the complainant has failed to substantiate his case under the Act and consequently the complaint case fails.

      Hence,

                                    O     R     D      E      R      E        D

            That the complaint petition U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 is dismissed against the o.ps. ex parte and no order as to cost.        

      Supply the  copies of the order to the parties, free of costs.

DICTATED  &    CORRECTED

BY   ME.                                                                          (   J.  N.   Ray   )

                                                                                  President,  C.D.R.F.,Howrah