Sri Shyamal Kumar Ghosh, Member

1. The instant consumer case has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties praying for certain reliefs enumerated in the petition of complaint.  
2. On 25/11/2022 the record was taken up for hearing on point of admission.
3. We have heard the ld. counsel appearing for the complainant at length and in full.
4. We have perused the substance of the petition of complaint along with all relevant documents and papers meticulously.
5. The instant consumer case has been filed on 15/09/2022 and as such it is clear to us that the said petition is to be guided by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
6. After careful perusal of the petition of complaint it is found that the Chairman and the Managing Director of Siddha Real Estate Development Pvt. Ltd. have been appeared as the opposite parties in the cause title of the aforesaid petition of complaint.
7.  Whether there is any prima facie case against the opposite parties or not as per C.P. Act 2019 that should be decided at first at the stage of admission hearing.
8. At the time of admission hearing we asked for showing the receipt in respect of paid consideration amount towards the opposite parties as per section 47 (1)(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The ld counsel filed some documents in respect of payment of consideration amount wherefrom it appears to us that the payments of consideration amount have been made by the complainant to one Vinay Shankar Mishra and Maya Mishra who are not the parties in the instant consumer case.
9. The complainant failed to show the receipts regarding payment of consideration amount to the opposite parties shown in the cause title of the instant petition of complaint filed by the complainant.
10. The ld counsel appearing for the complainant argued that the payment has been made to the opposite parties through Vinoy Shankar Mishra and Maya Mishra so for settlement of dispute between the parties, Shankar Mishra and Maya Mishra should be impleaded as the parties in the cause title of the instant case, but the complainant failed to implead their names in the cause title of the said case suffers from mis-joinder of the parties.
11. It appears from the petition of complaint that on and around 08/06/2012 at first an agreement was entered by and between the opposite parties and Mr. Vinay Shankar Mishra and Mrs Maya Mishra for sale of a residential flat no C 109 1^st floor super built up area 1710 sft.
12. Thereafter on and around 19/08/2015 a tripartite agreement named as Nomination agreement was entered into by the opposite parties herein, the buyers Mr. vinay Shankar Mishra and Mrs. Maya Mishra and the nominee being the complainant herein.
13. From the aforesaid discussion it is clear to us that Mr. Vinay Shankar Mishra and Mrs Maya Mishra both were the first buyers of the aforesaid flat in question and thereafter in pursuant to the nomination agreement, the complainant was the second buyer of the schedule property appended in the petition of complaint.
14. In view of the aforesaid discussions, there is no hesitation to hold that the second sale is involved in the present Consumer case which clearly comes well within the purview of the status of sales simplicitor and accordingly we further hold that the said consumer case has no leg to stand upon.
15. Hence the case fails at the admission stage.
16. The instant case stands disposed of as per above observations.
17. Note accordingly.