SYNOPSIS On behalf of Opposite Party No. 1 – Smt. Mina Basu In Consumer Case No. CC/06/2021

 

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

SYNOPSIS

On behalf of Opposite Party No. 1 – Smt. Mina Basu
In Consumer Case No. CC/06/2021

The present consumer complaint, so far as it relates to Opposite Party No. 1, is wholly misconceived and not maintainable. The complainant has failed to establish any privity of contract, consumer relationship, or cause of action against this Opposite Party. No agreement, allotment, receipt, or document has been produced to show that the complainant ever hired or availed any service from Opposite Party No. 1.

Opposite Party No. 1 is a private individual and landowner and is neither a builder, developer, promoter nor service provider. Mere ownership of land does not constitute “service” under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Consequently, the complainant does not fall within the definition of “Consumer” under Section 2(7) of the Act, and no allegation of deficiency in service or unfair trade practice can lie against this Opposite Party.

The complaint is founded upon an alleged development agreement dated 17.08.2001, the validity and enforceability of which were finally adjudicated in Title Suit No. 14 of 2008, dismissed on contest by judgment dated 20.08.2010 and affirmed by the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta in F.A. No. 46 of 2011 on 14.02.2011. The said adjudication has attained finality, and no right survives therefrom. The present complaint is thus barred by the principles of res judicata and constitutes an impermissible attempt to reopen settled issues.

Further, the complaint filed in 2021 is hopelessly barred by limitation under Section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, as the alleged cause of action pertains to events more than a decade old. No application for condonation of delay has been filed. The reliance placed by the complainant on an alleged Power of Attorney dated 11.10.2007, which is denied and unproved, further demonstrates the speculative and mala fide nature of the complaint.

In these circumstances, the complaint, insofar as it concerns Opposite Party No. 1, is not maintainable in law and deserves to be dismissed with costs.