DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS , AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR,

 KOLKATA-700 0144

      C.C. CASE NO. __159_ _ OF ___2016

DATE OF FILING : 23.12.2016         DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT: 13.12 .2018

Present                      :   President       :   Ananta Kumar Kapri

                                        Member(s)    :    Subrata Sarker  & Jhunu Prasad

COMPLAINANT   :         Sri Joydeb Debnath, son of Sri Gouranga Chandra Debnath of 130, N.S.C Bose Road, PO.O Harinavi, P.S Sonarpur, Kolkata-148.

•  VERSUS  -

O.P/O.Ps                         :  Sri Sripati Kumar Shaw, son of Sri Haricharan Shaw of 391/127, Prince Anwar Saha Road, P.S Jadavpur, Kolkata – 68.

_______________________________________________________________________

                                                            J  U  D  G  M  E  N  T

Sri Ananta Kumar  Kapri, President

           The complainant has filed the instant case under section 12 of the C.P Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.

           The facts leading to the filing of the instant case may be epitomized as follows:

           The complainant is a businessman and he purchased two shop rooms of 100 sq.ft each in the building as succinctly described in schedule to the complaint from the O.P, having paid a total consideration price of Rs.4 lac. The deed of conveyance was also executed and registered in favour of the complainant by the O.P on n29.8.2013. But, possession of those shop rooms have not been delivered to the complainant by the O.P and, therefore, the complainant has filed the instant case , praying for passing an order, directing the O.P to hand over the possession of those shop rooms to him and also for refund of compensation etc. Hence, arises the instant case.

          The O.P has filed written statement ,wherein it is contended inter alia that the instant case is not maintainable in law, because the complainant is a businessman and that he purchased two shop rooms for commercial purpose.

           Upon the averments of the parties, the following points are formulated for consideration.

POINTS  FOR DETERMINATION

1. Is the case not maintainable in law?
2. Is the complainant  entitled to get relief or reliefs as prayed for ?

EVIDENCE OF THE PARTIES

Evidence on affidavit is filed by the complainant.  No evidence is filed by the O.P. BNA is filed by the O.P and the same is kept in the record after consideration.

DECISION WITH REASONS

      Point no.1 & 2 :

              In the petition of complaint, it is stated by the complainant himself, vide para 2 of the complaint that he is a businessman and that he purchased the shop rooms for the purpose of making business after making loan from different sources. This averment of the complainant goes a long way to prove nothing but one thing, that the complainant purchased the shop rooms for the purpose of his business and this being so, the complainant cannot be regarded as a consumer in accordance with the provisions under section 2(1)(d) of C.P Act, 1986. There is no averment in the complaint to the effect that the complainant purchased the shop rooms for earning livelihood of himself and his family. Regards being had to these facts and circumstances of the case ,we feel no hesitation to say that the complainant is not a consumer and, therefore, the instant case is not maintainable in Law. The case deserves dismissal.

              In the result, the case fails.

            Hence,

ORDERED

             That the complaint case be and the same is dismissed on contest against the O.P but without cost.

         Let a free copy of this order be given to the parties concerned at once.   

                                                                                                                                                President

I / We agree

                            Member                                        Member

            Dictated and corrected by me

                                    President