SUMMATION OF ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF OPPOSITE PARTY NO. 1 – SMT. MINA BASU

 

BEFORE THE HON’BLE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOLKATA UNIT-III

Tramline Building ( 1^st Floor )

18, Judges Court Road, Alipore, Kolkata - 700027

 

 

 

Consumer Case no. CC/06/2021

 

                                                          In the matter of :

Sri Paramartha Choudhury,

                                                                            __________Complainant

-      Versus –

Smt. Mina Basu, and another.

                   _______Opposite parties

 

SUMMATION OF ARGUMENTS

ON BEHALF OF OPPOSITE PARTY NO. 1 – SMT. MINA BASU

 

1.   It is respectfully submitted that the present consumer complaint, so far as it concerns Opposite Party No. 1, is wholly misconceived, not maintainable and devoid of any legal foundation. The complainant has utterly failed to establish the basic jurisdictional facts required to invoke the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against this Opposite Party.

 

2.   At the outset, it is evident that there exists no privity of contract whatsoever between the complainant and Opposite Party No. 1. The complainant has not produced a single document to demonstrate that Opposite Party No. 1 ever entered into any agreement, understanding, or transaction with him, nor that any consideration was ever paid to her. In absence of contractual nexus, no liability—civil or consumer—can be fastened upon this Opposite Party.

 

3.   The complainant does not qualify as a “Consumer” within the meaning of Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. He has neither hired nor availed any service from Opposite Party No. 1. Any alleged transaction with third parties, even if assumed to be true, cannot confer consumer status against a landowner who neither promised nor rendered any service.

 

4.   Opposite Party No. 1 is admittedly not a builder, developer, promoter or service provider, but merely the owner of land. Mere ownership of immovable property does not amount to rendering of service under the Act. Therefore, the very foundation of alleging deficiency in service or unfair trade practice against Opposite Party No. 1 collapses.

 

5.   The entire complaint is founded upon an alleged development agreement dated 17.08.2001, the validity and enforceability of which have already been finally adjudicated by a competent Civil Court in Title Suit No. 14 of 2008, which was dismissed on contest by judgment dated 20.08.2010. The subsequent appeal was also dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta on 14.02.2011. The said adjudication has attained finality, and no right, title or interest survives therefrom.

 

6.   In view of such final civil adjudication, the present complaint is clearly hit by the principles of res judicata, issue estoppel and constructive res judicata, and constitutes a barred attempt to indirectly reopen issues that have already been conclusively settled by a court of competent jurisdiction.

 

7.   The complaint is also hopelessly barred by limitation. The alleged cause of action, if any, pertains to events dating back more than a decade prior to the filing of the complaint in 2021. No application for condonation of delay has been filed, nor any explanation offered. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed under Section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

8.   The complainant has further relied upon an alleged Power of Attorney dated 11.10.2007, which has been categorically denied by Opposite Party No. 1. The said document has neither been proved in accordance with law nor supported by any credible evidence. Reliance on such a disputed and unproved document only exposes the mala fide and speculative nature of the complaint.

 

9.   Significantly, the complaint does not even disclose any specific allegation, role, or relief claimed against Opposite Party No. 1. Proceedings against a party in absence of pleadings and prayers are unsustainable in law and amount to abuse of process.

10.               Taken as a whole, the complaint is false, frivolous, vexatious, time-barred and an abuse of the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Commission. Opposite Party No. 1 has been unnecessarily dragged into litigation despite there being no consumer relationship, no service, no deficiency and no cause of action.

 

11.               In these circumstances, Opposite Party No. 1 most respectfully submits that the complaint deserves to be dismissed at the threshold, with exemplary costs, to prevent misuse of the benevolent provisions of the Consumer Protection Act and to secure the ends of justice.