) The case of the complainant is that the complainant and two others are the substituted petitioners in this case after death of their father/predecessor Bhubananeshwar Prasad Yadav. He died intestate on 23.04.2016 during pendency of the present case, leaving behind him his legal heirs/representatives who are the substituted petitioners of this case.

2) That the father/predecessor namely Prabal Chandra Ghosh of O.P. Nos. 1 & 2 during his lifetime and the O.P. Nos. 3 to 3(d) were agreed to sell a dwelling flat (fully mentioned in the schedule of the property of the application u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of this case) to the Bhubaneshwar Prasad Yadav, now deceased against consideration money of Rs. 2,12,000/- (two lacs and twelve thousand) tantamount to 400 sft @ Rs. 530/- per sft (Rs. 2,12,000/-).

3) To the effect above, the father of O.P. Nos. 1 & 2 and the O.P. Nos. 3 to 3(d) took a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as advance from the said Bhubaneshwar Prasad Yadav and accordingly, one Tripartite Agreement for sale was duly executed on 21/01/2006 by the said father of O.P. Nos. 1 & 2 and O.P. Nos. 3 to 3(d) in favour of the said Bhubaneshwar Prassad Yadav on the terms and conditions fully written thereto. The original owner, now deceased Prabal Chandra Ghosh on the occasion of execution of aforesaid tripartite agreement, appointed the O.P. No. 3 represented by its partners/O.P. Nos. 3(a) to 3(d) of this case as his Constituted Attorney by a Power of Attorney to do all acts, deeds and things together with sell of the case property herein and other properties adjoining thereto.

4) It is also stated that the complainant had paid total amount of Rs. 2,40,000/- and excess amount of Rs. 11,240/- has been paid to the OP who shall return the money. The complainant has written the payment date in the complaint showing total amount of Rs. 2,40,000/-.

5) Although, on this day that is on 30.5.18 no one appears for the O.Ps and argument heard ex parte. But it appears that O.P.s have filed W/V and e-chief on 30.09.15 and onwards and argument has been heard on 28.10.15 and since then the case has been languishing in this court in different circumstances. For resolution of local Bar none appearance of party etc.

6) W/V of OP No. 1 & 2 is total denial of complainant’s case. It is stated in Para 12 that from the agreement dated 28.04.2005 the complainant is not a consumer and the complainant entered into such agreement in the capacity of the tenant. Hence, the petition is not maintainable. It is also stated that concerned agreement was executed on 28.04.2005 and the complainant has filed this case in the year 2015 that is after lapse of 10 years which is not permissible.

7)  OP No. 3(a) filed Written Version. The case of the OP No. 3(a) is that present OP No. 3(a) is not possessing any Power of Attorney. The complainant is a defaulter. Hence, complainant shall not have any right regarding registration of deed. It is also contended that the complainant has filed this case after lapse of 10 years which is not permissible in law being time barred. The complainant entered into such agreement in the capacity of the tenant. Hence the petition of Consumer Protection Act is not maintainable.

8)  The complainant has filed Xerox copy of tripartite agreement executed among complainant’s father and father of the OP No. 1 & 2 and OP No. 3 and others in the year 2006 and complainant executed the said agreement by paying consideration money to O.Ps. The OP No. 1 & 2 and 3 admitted the case of the complainant but raised the plea that the case of the complainant is time barred.

9)  The complainant filed Evidence-in-Chief. OP No. 1 & 2 also filed Affidavit-in-Chief. OP No. 3(a) files Written Notes of Argument. OP No. 1 & 2 also files Written Notes of Argument.

POINTS FOR DECISIONS

1. If the complainant is a consumer?
2. If the complainant paid all consideration money?
3. If the case is barred by limitation?
4. If the complainant is entitled to get relief?

DECISIONS WITH REASONS

The four points are taken together for brevity and convenience of discussion.

1) The complainant has stated his case and advanced argument in his favour omitting the limitation period. There was no explanation what prevented the complainant to file this case before 2015. It is admitted position that agreement was done between the parties in the year 2006. So, after 10 years this case has been filed which is barred by limitation.

O R D E R

Hence, it is ordered that the Complaint Case No.56/2015 be and same is dismissed on contest. No cost.

Let a copy of this order be made over to the parties free of cost.