Order No. – 15 Date - 23.03.2022
Ld. Advocate for the complainant is present.
Ld. Advocate for Opposite Party No.1 is absent.
Ld. Advocate for Opposite Party No.2 and 3 is absent.
Today fix for passing order on the petition for maintainability filed by the Ld. Advocate for opposite party no.1.
In support of maintainability petition, Ld. Advocate Mr. Saikat Mali appearing on behalf of opposite party no.1 and submits that one Vinod Kumar Singh is the complainant of this CC case and Vinod Kumar Singh is son of Sri Raj Mangal Singh. In this regard, Ld. Advocate refers from Joint Venture Agreement dated 22.04.2016 wherein Raj Mangal Singh along with his two brothers Rama Shankar Singh and Raj Narayan Singh mentioned as an owner of the land. But Complainant Vinod Kumar Singh nowhere in the Joint Venture Agreement was mentioned as a party to the Agreement. The Joint Venture Agreement made between the owners (i. Raj Manjal Singh, ii. Rama Shankar Singh and iii. Raj Narayan Singh) and the developer, M/s. Tirupati Balaji Construction, a partnership firm represented by its proprietor Sri Taraknath Shaw and Taraknath Shaw is the opposite party no.1 of this CC case.
In this CC case, complainant Vinod Kumar Singh filed this complaint case against the opposite party no.1 with a prayer for relief –
- Directing the opposite party no.1 to render service and arrange to complete the unfinished work in the flat.
- Restraining the opposite party no.1 from transferring the security room and any common part of the building to third party.
- Compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten lakh only) for mental harassment and agony.
Referring the prayer portion Ld. Advocate Mr. Mali submits that as per Consumer Protection Act, 2019, complainant Vinod Kumar Singh is not consumer so he has no right to claim such relief and has no locus standi to file this complaint case against the opposite party. Ld. Advocate Mr. Mali further submits that Raj Mangal Singh, the father of the complainant did not give any authority to file this case on behalf of him.There is no such averment in the plaint that Raj Mangal Singh gave the said authority or permission to file this complaint case.
Ld. Advocate further submits that the complainant got the possession of the said flat by depriving his two other brothers and Raj Mangal Singh did not hand over the possession to his son Vinod Kumar Singh, rather Raj Mangal Singh lodged a complaint before the Officer-in-Charge, Cossipore P.S. stating that his son Vinod Kumar Singh (Complainant) create a extreme nuisance and threaten to him and the agent of the opposite party no.1 for construction of the said premises.
Referring the copy of complaint, Ld. Advocate submits that Raj Mangal Singh never handed over possession of the said flat and as well as developer (opposite party no.1).Ld. Advocate submits that as per definition U/S 2(7) Complainant is not a Consumer.
In reply to this, Ld. Advocate for the complainant submits that occupier or a person having possession has a right to file the complaint case if there is any deficiency of service as a beneficiary.
In reply to this, the definition of beneficiary will attack to the person who are in peaceful possession and who got the possession according to law.
In this regard, I have carefully perused the petition of complaint as well as written objection wherein I do not find any iota of evidence that Raj Mangal singh willingly deliver the possession of the said flat or Raj Mangal Singh gifted the said flat in favour of the complainant.So, in my view, the status of complainant is a stranger or illegal occupier of the said flat.So the person having possession of the said flat who has no legal footing of his possession cannot claim as a beneficiary. So, I do not agree with the view of Ld. Advocate for the complainant that complainant has a right to file this case as a beneficiary on the ground of the deficiency of service committed by the opposite party no.1.
The party of the Joint Venture Agreement i.e. owners group has a legal right to claim completion certificate from the opposite party no.1 on completion of the project or a person who got possession from the developer or from the owners group have right to claim completion certificate from the opposite party no.1.The person who are not included in the above mention group, have no right to claim the completion certificate or have no right to file a case for completion of incomplete works.
Hence, I hold that complainant is not a consumer under Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and complainant has no locus standi to file this complaint case with a prayer as mentioned in the complaint petition.
Hence, I hold that this complaint case is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
that the complaint case be and the same is dismissed as it is not maintainable according to Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
No order as to cost.
