Date of Filing: 18/08/2021

Date of Judgement: 06/12/2023

Sri Sudip Niyogi, Hon’ble President

                                                                     Brief Facts

The complainant who claims to be a reputed wholesale trader stated that her husband, Lt. Jadu Nandan Saha had agreed to buy one godown-cum-storeroom measuring an area of 270 sq.ft. super built up area in the western side on the ground floor alongwith proportionate share of common area etc. in the newly constructed G+3 building at premises No. 52 B.L. Saha Road, at a consideration of Rs.12,00,000/-.  OP 1 was the developer of the said building at the said premises, the owner of which was OP 2.  The said agreement of her husband was made with OP 1 developer who received the entire amount of consideration of Rs.12,00,000/- in the year 2019 and handed over the vacant possession of the same to her husband.  After the death of her husband on 29/5/2020, the complainant alongwith OP 3 & 4 being the legal heirs and successors have been possessing and enjoying the said property.  The complainant requested OP 1 to execute and register the deed of conveyance on repeated occasions and also issued notice through her Advocate requesting OP 1 to execute and register the document.  Though OP 1, through his Advocate, sought for the particulars of the legal heirs and successors of said Jadu Nandan Saha.  Complainant also claimed that her son and daughter had requested OP 1 to make the deed of conveyance in the name of the complainant and they had no objection and agreed to sign the deed as a witness.  As no document was executed by OP 1, complainant approached this commission praying for execution and registration of the deed of conveyance in respect of the said property, compensation, cost of litigation etc.

OP 2, the land owner, did not contest the case.  However, OP 1 filed one written version admitting that he had taken Rs.12,00,000/- from said Jadu Nandan Saha.  But according to him, the said amount was taken in connection with the open space in the ground floor under the roof of the said G+3 storied building at the said premises, which said Saha wanted to purchase and he expressed his readiness and willingness to register the deed of conveyance in favour of the legal heirs of said Jadu Nandan Saha.  He also claimed that the complainant is not at all a consumer under the C.P. Act.  So, he prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

As OP 2 did not appear to contest this case, it was heard exparte against him.

Now, the point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to any relief(s)?

                                                                        FINDINGS

We have perused the evidence of the parties, questionnaires and replies thereto and the documents.

According to complainant, OP 1 had entered into a development agreement with OP 2, the land owner, to raise a G+3 storied building at the said premises.  According to complainant, her husband, Jadu Nandan Saha since deceased, had entered into an agreement with OP 1 to buy one godown-cum-storeroom measuring an area of 270 sq.ft. super built up on the ground floor of the newly constructed building at a price of Rs.12,00,000/-.  But, OP 1 denied having agreed to sell the godown-cum-storeroom on the ground floor of the building as claimed by the complainant.  According to this OP, he had agreed to sell one open space on the ground floor under the roof of the building.  He, of course, admitted to have received Rs.12,00,000/- from the husband of the complainant for the said space.  Thus, OP alleged that after taking possession of the space, the husband of the complainant converted the said space into a godown for his business purpose.

Admittedly, in this case, no agreement for sale was produced by the complainant.  It is also found, the complainant claimed to be a reputed wholesale trader running her business from the ground floor of the said building, though the deed in respect of the said space is yet to be executed and registered in their names, for which complainant approached this commission.

From the correspondences of the Ld. Advocates for the parties, it transpires that OP 1 wanted to get the document to be executed in the name of the legal heirs of said Jadu Nandan Saha and that is why they wanted to get the particulars of his legal heirs.  In this connection, complainant claimed that her son and daughter had no objection, if the deed is executed and registered in the name of the complainant.  But that was not done.  In such a situation, we find both parties were given opportunities to get the matter settled between them, but that could not be done.  Now, the most pertinent question is that whether the complainant is a consumer in connection with this case in accordance with the provision of C.P. Act, 2019. 

As per Section 2 (7) of the C.P. Act, in order to be a consumer, a person either buys any goods for a consideration or hires or avails of any service for a consideration.  In the present case, what we find, nowhere in her petition, complainant claimed that she used the space or godown for the purpose of her livelihood and from her contention, the place is found to be used by her for commercial purpose.

Another important thing is that, nowhere in the four corners of her petition of complaint, it is found that there was hiring of service of any godown from OP 1.  Mere an agreement to buy a space or godown or buying the same for the purpose of business does not make the purchaser to be a consumer under the C.P. Act and this point is also found to have agitated by OP 1 in his written argument as well.

So, considering all these, we are of the opinion that the complainant cannot be said to be a consumer and that is why this complaint is not at all maintainable.

Accordingly, it is

                                          ORDERED

That the instant complainant is dismissed as not being maintainable.

Dictated and corrected by me

President