DATE OF FILING                    :     26.02.2015.

DATE OF S/R                            :      08.04.2015.

DATE OF FINAL ORDER      :     05.08.2015.

Sri Shiwa Mongal Prasad,

proprietor of Sree Ramji Enterprise

having its office at 53/2/A, Nilmoni Mullick Lane,

P.S. Howrah, District Howrah. .……………………………………… COMPLAINANT.

• Versus -

   

  1.         Sri Lakshmi Narayan  Pal.

  2.         Sri Sukumar Pal,

  3.         Sri Ajay Pal,

  4.         Sri Bijay Pal,

  o.p. nos. 1 to 4  are sons of late Dulal Pal.

  5.         Smt. Arati Pal,

  wife of late Dilip Pal,

  residing at Village and P.O. Arrah, P.S. Kanksa,

  Durgapur, District Burdwan,

  PIN 713112. ……………………..…………………………OPPOSITE PARTIES.

                                                  P    R    E     S    E    N     T

               Hon’ble President  :   Shri  B. D.  Nanda,  M.A. ( double ), L.L.M., WBHJS.

                                 Hon’ble Member      :      Smt. Jhumki Saha.

                                        Hon’ble Member : Shri A.K. Pathak .   

                                                              F  I   N   A    L       O   R   D    E     R

   

1. This is an application U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 filed by the petitioner, Sri Shiwa Mongal Prasad, praying before the Forum directing the o.ps. to refund the advance amount of Rs. 2 lakhs and Rs. 1 lakh for registration of gift deed, power of attorney and notarized agreement and Rs. 15,000/- as compensation.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the o.ps. are joint owners and the petitioner carries on developing business constructing multi storied building. The o.ps. approached the petitioner for constructing a multi storied building on their land measuring 7 cottah 2 chitak 29 sq. ft., dag no. 2693 of Khatian nos. 542/544 in Mouza Arrah, P.S. Kanska, Durgapur, and the petitioner agreed to make the construction. There was agreement between parties on 07.08.2011 in non judicial stamp of Rs. 10/-.There was a supplementary agreement on 30.08.2011. It was agreed that the owners should get 30% of the construction area while developer would get 70%. The petitioner paid Rs. 2 lakhs to the o.ps. who granted money receipt. The o.ps. did not deliver the title deed and other relevant papers to the petitioner for getting sanction plan and mutation work. The petitioner requested the o.ps. to hand over the documents but the o.ps. were reluctant. The petitioner had borne both the cost of execution and registration of the deed of gift executed by Haridan Paul and thus invested more than Rs. 1 lakh. When the o.ps. did not take any positive step regarding the agreement then the petitioner sent a letter through his advocate. The petitioner verbally requested the o.ps. to settle the matter but in vain. Then he filed this case for refund of the money advanced and the expenditure incurred by him.

3. The o.p. though served with notice did not contest the case and thus the case is heard ex parte against them.

4.  The only point is to be decided herein that whether the petitioner is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

5. In support of his case the petitioner filed affidavit as well as the copy of agreement for developing the land  wherefrom it is noticed that the petitioner has paid a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs to the o.ps. as advance and he also spent Rs. 1 lakh for registration of the gift deed and power of attorney etc. On scrutiny of the record, it is noticed that the petitioner is a promoter and the o.ps. are land owners. As per the definition of ‘Consumer’ in the C.P. Act, 1986 it is laid down that any person who buys goods and avails of services for consideration is consumer and when such goods are purchased or obtained for resell or for commercial purpose then such persons who render such services are not consumers.

6. In the instant case, the petitioner being a promoter cum developer is a businessman because he made the agreement for developing the property for earning benefit out of such transaction and he can never be a ‘Consumer’ and thus the complaint filed by the petitioner cannot be a consumer dispute and so such disputes are not maintainable before the Consumer Forum.

           In view of above, this Forum finds that the petitioner not being a consumer under the definition of the C.P. Act, 1986 and the dispute not being a consumer dispute the petitioner miserably failed to prove that he is entitled to relief. He is to approach the proper Forum for getting his reliefs.

           Court fee paid is correct.       

      Hence,                             

O     R     D      E      R      E        D

     That the C. C. Case No. 83  of 2015 ( HDF 83 of 2015 )  be and the same is dismissed but without costs. 

      Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.

DICTATED  &    CORRECTED

BY   ME.  

  (    B. D.  Nanda   )                                              

  President,  C.D.R.F., Howrah.