Tripura

West Tripura

CC/97/2016

Sri Kunal Chandra Dey & Sri Sovik Dey. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri Shibu Lal Saha. - Opp.Party(s)

Mr.K.Nandi, A.L.Saha, Mr.A.Saha.

16 Mar 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM
WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

CASE NO:  CC-  97  of  2016

 

1. Kunal Chandra Dey,
S/O- Sri Dulal Chandra Dey,
East Jalefa, P.S. Sabroom, 
South Tripura.

2. Sri Sovik Dey,
S/o- Sri Nirode Baran Dey,
Ramkrishna Para, Kalapania,
P.S. Sabroom, South Tripura,        ..........Complainant.

             ___VERSUS___
Sri Shibu Lal Saha,
S/O- Lt. Laxmi Kanta Saha,
Siddhi Ashram,
Santanagar, P.S. Amtali
West Tripura.            ...........Opposite parties.

      __________PRESENT__________

 SRI A. PAL,
PRESIDENT,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER  
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

SMT. Dr. G. DEBNATH
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

SRI U. DAS
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

C O U N S E L

For the complainant    : Sri Amrit Lal Saha,
                  Sri Kajal Nandi,
                  Sri Abheek Saha,
                  Advocates.

For the O.P. No. 3 & 4    : Sri Suman Bhattacharjee,
                  Sri Shibu Chandra Deb,
                  Advocate.
                                               
        
        JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON: 16.03.2017

J U D G M E N T
        This case filed by one Kunal Chandra Dey and Sovik Dey U/S 12 of the of the Consumer Protection. Petitioners case in short is that he entered into an agreement with the Opposite party Shibu Lal Saha of Siddhi Ashram in respect of land measuring  0.050 acre (2 Ganda 2 kara) for consideration price of Rs.20, lacs. As per agreement advance Rs.5 lacs was paid on 15.09.16. After enquiry it is found that O.P. has ownership over the land 0.060 acre. He has not mentioned the description of the land correctly. Area also not correctly given. Petitioner then wanted to take back the amount advance Rs.5 lacs. O.P. declined. Then petition is filed. 

        O.P. appeared, filed W/S denying the claim challenging the maintainability. 

        Petitioner produced copy of agreement for sale, map of khatian, copy of legal notice, etc. 

        Petitioner also produced the statement on affidavit of one witness Sovik Dey. 
        O.P. on the other hand produced no evidence.
         
        On the basis of evidence and argument we shall now decide about the maintainability of the case.
            
Findings:
        From the petition itself it is clear that the matter is not elated to any goods or service. It is a land dispute and matter of agreement for sale. Land can not be defined as goods as per Sales of Goods Act. From the petition it is clear that it is a case for specific performance of contract or relates to cheating. Petitioner are not consumers as per definition given in the Consumer Protection Act. 'Consumer' means 'buyers of goods for consideration or purchaser of service of goods or service'. So this Consumer Court has no jurisdiction to entertain their prayer in respect of land dispute or agreement relating to advance given for purchasing land. Petition is not maintainable and therefore dismissed.  
      
  Announced.

 

 

SRI A. PAL
PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM,
WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

SMT. DR. G. DEBNATH,
MEMBER,
 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM, 
WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA    SRI U. DAS
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.