Today is fixed for admission hearing.

After hearing the Ld. Advocate of the complainant and giving consideration to the imports of the complainant we find that the complainant is not at all consumer under OP 2. In fact, under an agreement with Rabin Nag (OP 2), one Rabindra Kumar Gupta got a flat on payment of Rs. 2,30,000/- (Rupees two lakh thirty thousand) only from the developer (OP 2). But there is no sale deed in respect to the said transaction. Only Rabin Nag came in possession of the flat.

After his expiry, his son got the possession of the said flat; but he did not acquire title. His son Sandip Gupta transferred the said flat to the complainant for valuable consideration. For the 1^st transfer no stamp duties were paid. It is cardinal principle of law that a buyer cannot get better title that the sale had/has. Only possession without title could be acquired by the complainant. By any stage of injunction it cannot be said that there was any relationship of ‘Consumer’ and ‘Service Provider’ in between OP 2 and the complainant. The case as framed is not at all maintainable. The complainant cannot get any relief from OP 2 in this case under Consumer Protection Act. He may, however, enforce the right to the flat in Civil Court.

Hence, it is ordered that the case be and the same is dismissed, as not being admitted.

The complainant would get a free copy of this order. He will also get back the documents he has filed in support of his case.

Dictated and corrected by

[HON'BLE MR. Lakshmi Kanta Das]
PRESIDENT