HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT MANDAL, PRESIDENT

1. The complainant Dr. Sayantan Mukhopadhyay filed this consumer case being No. 93/2024 under section 49 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The complainant alone in his personal capacity filed this instant consumer case against the opposite parties praying for the following reliefs :-

“i) To provide detailed accounts of funds received on account of Advance maintenance and Sinking Funds with expenses (if any) from all the apartment owners of Avishi Trident at 34B, B.T. Road, Kolkata – 700002;

ii) To Refund and/ or transfer the entire sum of money to the tune of Rs.2 Crores more or less  lying with the Opposite Party no. 1 on account of Advance maintenance and Sinking Funds alongwith interest @12% per annum to Avishi Trident Association of Apartment Owners, a registered association;

iii) To restore and or organise the Charging points for charging of electrical vehicles;

iv) Pass any such order and/ or orders as this Ld. Tribunal may deem fit and proper.”

2. Heard the Learned Advocate appearing for the complainant. Perused the record including the petition of complaint.

3. Having heard the Learned Advocate appearing for the complainant and on perusal of the petition of complaint it appears to me that the complainant has clearly and categorically stated in paragraph No. 5 of the petition of complaint that the complainant and owner of one or more within the Avishi Trident Complex has personally paid the advance maintenance charges for a period of 12 months being ₹2.50 per sq. ft. per month, along with contributions towards the sinking fund of ₹30/- per sq. ft. directly to the opposite parties at the time of purchasing their respective unit having 1688 sq. ft. being a sum of ₹1,01,280/-. The complainant has also stated in the said paragraph that all the individual owners being 215 residential units similarly paid the aforementioned charges and contributions as part of the purchase transactions for their respective residential units. The complainant has also stated in paragraph No. 20 of the said consumer petition that the sum of money involved is full amount of the advance maintenance deposit for 12 months which was levied on all 215 residential flat owners as well as the sinking fund of ₹30/- per sq. ft. which was to the tune of ₹2,00,00,000/- or more or less along with interest.

4. These facts clearly prove that the value of the present consumer case is more than ₹2,00,00,000/-.

5. In the Consumer Protection Act the pecuniary jurisdiction of a State Commission is to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services paid is more than ₹50 lakh rupees but not more than 2 crore rupees. In this case, I have already decided in the previous paragraph that the value of this present case is more than 2 crore rupees. This fact clearly oust the jurisdiction of this Commission.

6. Upon perusal of the petition of complaint it appears to me that one Dr. Sayantan Mukhopadhyay alone filed the present case praying for direction upon the opposite parties to provide detailed account of funds received on account of advance maintenance and sinking funds with expenses from all the apartment owners of Avishi Trident Complex at 34B, B.T. Road, Kolkata – 700002.

7. From the above it appears to me that the complainant alone has filed the consumer case on behalf of or for the benefit of all consumers so interested. Therefore, it may be concluded that the complainant has filed the present case in a representative capacity alone on behalf of other 215 residential flat owners. But the complainant has not filed any application under section 35(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 praying for permission to file the present complaint. So, the complaint should be rejected for non filing of application under section 35(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

8. Under these facts and circumstances and on consideration of the materials available on record I am of the view that the complaint case is not maintainable in law and is liable to be dismissed.

9. In the result, the complaint case be and the same is dismissed without being admitted.

10. The complaint case is, thus, disposed of accordingly.