The court ruled that the maintainability of a consumer complaint regarding an agreement for sale must be evaluated on its direct merits rather than procedural applications, necessitating fresh consideration by the lower court.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT MANDAL, PRESIDENT

1. This Revision Petition is at the instance of the Revisionist/Complainant and is directed against the order No.9 dt.09.04.2025 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Kolkata – Unit III (South), West Bengal (in short, District Commission) in connection with case no.MA/22/2024 arising out of Consumer Case No.CC/13/2024 whereby Ld. District Commission was pleased to direct to hear the Maintainability application filed by the Revisionist/Opposite Party at the time of argument.

2. The Complainant/Respondent filed a complaint case being No.CC/13/2024 against the Revisionist/Opposite Party praying for the following reliefs :

i) An order directing the Opposite Party to execute a Supplementary Agreement for Sale with the Complainants modifying the consideration amount to Rs.40,61,800/- and area to 1150 sq.ft.(More or less) super built up area.

ii) An order directing the Opposite Parties to execute a Deed of Conveyance in favour of Complainants and deliver the physical possession to the Complainants in respect of the Schedule property in respect of subsisting agreement for sale simultaneously with receiving the balance consideration amount.

iii) An order directing the Opposite Parties to pay the Complainants a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) only for unfair trade practice.

iv) An order directing the Opposite Parties to pay the Complainants a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) only for litigation costs.

v) Any other relief or reliefs the Complainant is entitled under law and equity.

3. On receiving the notice, the Revisionist/Opposite Party entered appearance in this case and was contesting the case by filing written version.

4. During pendency of the case an application challenging the maintainability of the case was filed by the Revisionist/Opposite Party and the said application was kept on the record and Ld. Commission was pleased direct to hear the same at the time of argument by the order impugned.

5. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order, the Revisionist/Opposite Party has preferred this Revision Application.

6. Heard Ld. Advocate appearing for the Revisionist/Opposite Party. Perused the record and the impugned order No.9 dt.09.04.2025.

7. Having heard the Ld. Advocate appearing for the Revisionist/Opposite Party and on careful th perusal of the record, it appears to us that an agreement for sale was executed on 4 day of August, 2023 in between the parties. On perusal of the said agreement for sale dt. 14.08.2023, it appears to us that Revisionist/Opposite party entered into an agreement for rd sale in respect of one self contained residential flat on the 3 Floor, measuring about 1359 Sq.ft. super built up area consisting of 3 bed rooms, 1 drawing cum dinning, 1 kitchen, 1 toilet and 1 w.c and 2 balconies of the G+3 storied building situated at Municipal premises No.62, Sahapur Main Road, Kolkata – 700038, Ward No.119, P.S. Behala. As per the said agreement for sale, it is found that Complainant/Respondent intended to purchase the said self contained flat at a consideration of Rs.48 lacs and out of which 10 lacs was paid as earnest money.

8. The said agreement for sale also discloses that the agreement was executed for sale of a ready flat. There was no housing construction or development work involved in the matter.

There is nothing but an agreement for sale of a ready flat.

9. Under these facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the Ld. District Co