MR. DEBASIS BHATTACHARYA, MEMBER
21.09.2015
Being aggrieved by and/or dissatisfied with the order dated 16.06.2014 passed in CC/14/371 by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, (in short, District Forum), Unit-I, Kolkata, the Complainant thereof has preferred this appeal.
The short question involved in this appeal is as to whether the initial rejection of the case by the Ld. District Forum vide order No.02 dated 16.06.2014 is suffering from any anomaly for making an intervention in this appeal.
Decision with Reasons
Ld. Advocate for the Appellant has submitted that there is a clear deficiency in service by the Respondents/OPs. The charges have been taken by them from the Appellant/Complainant towards membership fees, being so paid. Thus, it comes within the compass of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. He has relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.6237/1990.
Ld. Advocate for the Respondents has submitted that this is a complimentary offer regarding a piece of land and has no connection with the original offer, and it does not fall within deficiency in service of the Respondents. This is a complimentary gift which is without any consideration. Further, it is a matter in respect of land simpliciter. The impugned order has made on proper application of mind. He has relied upon a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2013 STPL (Web) 892 SC and a decision of this Commission in FA/791/2012.
No service is thereby rendered by the Respondents to the Appellant. It is nothing but a benevolent gift. Further, it does not fall within the category of “housing construction”, but it is a pure matter of land to be given by the Respondents to the Appellant by way of registered deed. As there is no deficiency in service in question as per the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in the matter, the instant complaint case is not maintainable. Impugned order is a rightful and justified one, and is upheld. Appeal is dismissed.
