HON’BLE JUSTICE ISHAN CHANDRA DAS, PRESIDENT
This appeal has been directed against the judgment and order dated 27/04/2015 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressed Forum, Unit-I, Kolkata in CDF/Unit-I/Case No. 103/2012 wherein Ld. Forum concerned allowed the complaint case on contest with cost against the OP and he was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- only towards the total consideration amount paid by the complainants/appellants and further direction was given to the OP to pay a sum of Rs. 30,000/- for harassment and mental agony and Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation cost, to be paid to the complainants within 30 days from the date of communication of the order with a default clause.
Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 27/04/2015, offering the decree in part, the complainants preferred the appeal and they prayed for enhancement of the amount of compensation.
Brief fact of the case was that the complainants/appellants (hereinafter referred to as appellants) entered into an agreement with the OP/Respondent (hereinafter as respondent) to purchase one type ‘A’ plot of land for a consideration of Rs. 1,20,000/- and booked the said plot on 19/02/2004 on payment of Rs. 24,000/-. The appellants also paid balance consideration by installments but despite the fact that the entire consideration was paid to the respondent, the deed of conveyance was neither executed nor possession was delivered in favour of the appellants which prompted the appellants to take recourse of the District CDR Forum seeking reliefs.
The respondent being the OP before Ld. Forum concerned filed written version on its behalf and challenged the complaint case on the issue of its maintainability and denied the cause of action, as averred in the body of the petition of complaint. Ld. District Forum concerned upon going through the pleadings of the parties and evidence on record, produced on behalf of the appellants, came to the conclusion that the appellants being the complainants of the complaint case deserved reliefs in terms of their prayers.
Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant in course of argument drew our attention to the judgment impugned and pointed out that his clients applied for compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- but the Forum concerned, awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 30,000/- only but he also added that a direction for enhancement of such compensation in terms of prayer would be sufficient to meet the ends of justice.
But the fact remains, the complainants of the original complaint case alleged that they intended to purchase a plot of land (type ‘A’) for a consideration of Rs. 1,20,000/-, paid consideration by installments and produced all such documents to substantiate their claim for the purchase of a plot of land on payment of consideration is self explanatory and does not come within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The appellants herein did not pray for any service within the meaning of section 2(O) of the Act. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ganeshlal S/o Motilal Sahu – vs – Shyam (civil appeal no. 331 of 2007) decided on 26.09.2013, held the following “It is submitted that failure to hand over possession of the plot of land simpliciter cannot come within the jurisdiction of the District Consumer Forum, State Commission or National Commission. We quite see merit in this submission of Mr. Lambat, particularly having seen the definition of ‘deficiency’ as quoted above. We may, however, note that when it comes to “housing construction”, the same has been specifically covered under the definition of ‘service’ by an amendment inserted by Act 50 of 1993 with effect from 18th June, 1993. That being the position, as far as the housing construction by sale of flats by builders or societies is concerned, that would be on a different footing. On the other hand, where a sale of plot of land simpliciter is concerned, and if there is any complaint, the same would not be covered under the said Act”.
In view of the above decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court, we decline to pass any favourable order by way of entertaining the appeal rather we are inclined to hold that Ld. District Forum was not justified in passing any decree in favour of the appellants, far to speak of the decree in part. Hence we dispose of the appeal with the observation that the complaint case is liable to be dismissed and we dismiss the complaint case being not maintainable before the Consumer Courts, established u/s 9 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, but in the circumstances we do not pass any order as to costs.
