State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Sethi Constructions. vs M/S Designs on 22 May, 2015
Daily Order STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION WEST BENGAL 11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087 Complaint Case No. CC/116/2011 1. M/S Sethi Constructions. Partnership firm, 78, Sambhu Nath Pandit Street, P.S. Bhowanipore, Kolkata - 700 020. 2. Sri G.S. Sethi, a partner of M/s Sethi Constructions 78, Sambhu Nath Pandit Street, P.S. Bhowanipore, Kolkata - 700 020. 3. Smt. Harinder Kaur 78, Sambhu Nath Pandit Street, P.S. Bhowanipore, Kolkata - 700 020. ...........Complainant(s) Versus 1. M/S Designs 4, Park Lane, P.S. - Park Street, Kolkata - 700 016. 2. Sri Saila Kumar Basu S/o Late Arun Kumar Basu, 28A, Dr. Rajendra Road, P.S. - Bhowanipore, Kolkata - 700 020. 3. Smt. Shree Basu D/o Late Arun Kumar Basu, 28A, Dr. Rajendra Road, P.S. - Bhowanipore, Kolkata - 700 020. 4. Smt. Santwana Chowdhury D/o Late Arun Kumar Basu, 28A, Dr. Rajendra Road, P.S. - Bhowanipore, Kolkata - 700 020. 5. Smt. Shakti Roy Chowdhury D/o Late Arun Kumar Basu, 28A, Dr. Rajendra Road, P.S. - Bhowanipore, Kolkata - 700 020. 6. Smt. Malati Basu W/o Late Debasis Basu, 28A, Dr. Rajendra Road, P.S. - Bhowanipore, Kolkata - 700 020. 7. Sri Sumalya Basu S/o Late Debasis Basu, 28A, Dr. Rajendra Road, P.S. - Bhowanipore, Kolkata - 700 020. ............Opp.Party(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KALIDAS MUKHERJEE PRESIDENT HON'BLE MRS. MRIDULA ROY MEMBER HON'BLE MR. TARAPADA GANGOPADHYAY MEMBER For the Complainant: Mr. Prasanta Banerjee, Advocate For the Opp. Party: Mr. Abhijit Sarkar. Mr. Saunak Sengupta., Advocate Mr. Abhijit Sarkar. Mr. Saunak Sengupta., Advocate Mr. Abhijit Sarkar. Mr. Saunak Sengupta., Advocate Mr. Abhijit Sarkar. Mr. Saunak Sengupta., Advocate Mr. Abhijit Sarkar. Mr. Saunak Sengupta., Advocate Mr. Abhijit Sarkar. Mr. Saunak Sengupta., Advocate Mr. Abhijit Sarkar. Mr. Saunak Sengupta., Advocate ORDER
No.21/22.05.2015 HON'BLE JUSTICE MR. KALIDAS MUKHERJEE, PRESIDENT This order relates to hearing on MA 408 of 2014 filed by the OP challenging the maintainability of the complaint case on the ground that the Complainant is a registered partnership firm and is engaged in commercial activity. It is contended that the Complainant is not a consumer under the provisions of C. P. Act, 1986.
The Learned Counsel for the Misc. Applicant has submitted that the petition of complaint should be dismissed being not maintainable.
The Learned Counsel for the Complainant has submitted that the complaint is maintainable under the facts as stated in the petition of complaint.
We have heard the submission made by both sides. The Learned Counsel for the Misc. Applicant has referred to the decisions reported in 78 CWN 872 [Daddy S. Mazda & Ors vs. K. R. Irani]; (2009) 7 SCC 412 [State of Orissa vs. Prasanna Kumar Mohanty]; (1989) 3 SCC 56 [Gopal Saran vs. Satyanarayana]. The Complainant has filed written objection against the Miscellaneous Application contending that the transaction is not at all commercial in nature.
In paragraph 6 of the petition of complaint it has been stated that agreement for sale was executed on 24/03/08 between the OP No.1 and the Complainant for the sale of the flat on the 2nd floor having 1725 sq. ft. super built up area together with proportionate undivided impartible share or interest of the land under the building. On perusal of the alleged agreement dated 24/03/08 we find that it is a letter written by the OP M/s Designs to the Complainant acknowledging the receipt of the sum of Rs.1 lakh from the Complainant. It has been categorically stated in the W.V. that there was no formal agreement between the parties and the alleged agreement was a letter written by OP to the Complainant and that apart there was no formal agreement between the parties. Such being the position, we are of the view that the correspondence between the parties dated 24/03/08 was not an agreement for sale of the subject flat and it cannot be treated as an enforceable agreement.
Secondly, the Complainant is a partnership firm under the name and style "M/s Sethi Constructions". The Complainant being a construction firm is engaged in commercial activity and, therefore, the Complainant cannot be said to be a consumer within the meaning of section 2(1)(d) of the C. P. Act, 1986.
The Miscellaneous Application bearing no.408 of 2014 is allowed. The petition of complaint is dismissed. [HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KALIDAS MUKHERJEE] PRESIDENT [HON'BLE MRS. MRIDULA ROY] MEMBER [HON'BLE MR. TARAPADA GANGOPADHYAY] MEMBER