Heard the Ld. Advocate of the Complainants on the point of admission hearing.

It is the allegation of the Complainants that Complainants and OPs signed an agreement on 01.09.2018. OP Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are altogether a developer company and has business of property sale and purchase. The Complainants came to know that OP 4 will help them to purchase a flat and OP 2 and 3 will develop the plot and will hand over the same to Complainants, but the condition was that the OP 2 and 3 will first sign an agreement with the Complainants for purchasing the plot which they will develop later on and it was also decided that second agreement shall be signed by and between the OPs and Complainants for the development of such flat.

In support of his contention Ld. Advocate of the Complainants has highlighted one decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 944 of  2016 (in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 1633 of  2015), Bunga Daniel Babu - versus - M/s Sri Vasudeva Constructions & Ors. dated 28.07.2004 and also another decision Appeal (Civil) 5826 of 2002, Haryana Urban Development Authority & Ors. - versus - A. K. Rampal, dated 28.07.2004 is of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

In paragraph no. 8 of the petition of complaint it appears that the cause of action of the instant case was arose on 01.09.2018 and according to Complainants it is continuing.

Considering the entire materials on record this Commission is of the view that even if the allegation of the Complainants is accepted that does not make out any such case which may come into the periphery of this Commission under the C.P. Act, 2019 and in such a situation Complainants are not standing as Consumers to the OPs.  It is palpably clear that on the basis of future acts of same concerned OPs the entire cause of action will be involved. Certainly, to the mind of this Commission the facts as incorporated in this petition of Complaint does not inspired this Commission to say anything positive.

The factual aspects of the two decisions filed on behalf of the Complainants and the facts of the instant case which is under consideration of this Commission are different and said two decisions have no manner of legal application relating to the case which is under consideration of this Commission.

Finally, it can be said that considering the materials on record and touching upon the submissions of Ld. Counsel appearing for the Complainants including keeping in view the aforesaid two decisions this Commission is of the opinion that prima facie there is no material to proceed further with the case.

Hence, the instant petition of complaint stands rejected.  

Dictated and corrected by

[HON'BLE MRS. Sagarika Sarkar]
MEMBER