The sale of a developed plot of land, where the agreement includes obligations for infrastructure and development, is not a 'sale simpliciter' but constitutes a service under the Consumer Protection Act.

ORDER

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIBHAS RANJAN DE, PRESIDENT

1. The Appellants herein seek to impugne and set aside the judgment dated 19th March, 2024 in CC No.107 of 2017 delivered by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Baruipur, South 24 Parganas (hereinafter referred to as Ld. DCDRC); the Quorum nobis issued a directive compelling the respondents to refund the entire consideration amount of Rs.7,50,000/- (Rupees Seven lacs fifty thousand only) along with interest @ 9% per annum, while further imposing a fiscal penalty of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) as litigation expenses, returnable within 60 days ultimatum.

BACKGROUND FACTS

2. In its most crystalline form, the fact stands that in a formal accord between the appellants and respondents, an agreement for sale was struck regarding developed plot of land measuring Five (05) Kathas, under J.L.No.67, Mouza Hogalkuria, Sonarpur, South 24 Parganas along with common amenities and also by constructing common road to reach the allocated plots.

3. Despite the full satisfaction of the consideration amount, the respondents faltered in their obligations, failing both to deliver physical possession of the plot and to solemnize the transfer through execution and registration of the deed of conveyance. Consequently, this consumer grievance was formally inaugurated the hallowed portals of the jurisdictional DCDRC.

4. Following the submissions of written versions by the Opposite Parties, both sides reinforced their contentions by tendering evidence through formal affidavits. Upon a meticulous appraisal of the pleadings and the evidentiary record, the Ld. DCDRC proceeded to pronounce the judgment that now stands assailed in the present appeal.

ARGUMENT

5. Submitting with profound earnestness, the Ld. Counsel for the appellants postulated that the agreement for sale of plot simpliciter which does not come within the ambit of ‘consumer’ under Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

6. In support of his agreement, a case of Ganeshlal -vs- Shyam reported in (2013) Supreme (SC 915) and a case of Dr. Sumanta Dutta and another -vs- M/s. Broadway Realtors Pvt. Ltd. and other in a complaint case No.CC/447 of 2016, were relied on.

7. Embellishing the discourse with jurisprudential rigor, the Ld. Counsel for the respondents heralded that the averments of the agreement clearly show that the agreement is not a sale of a plot simpliciter. He referred to few clauses of agreement.

8. In support of his contention, he relied on the following judgments :-

i) Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board vs. Bishamber Dayal Goyal and Ors. (Civil Appeal No.3122 of 2006) before Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

ii) M/s. Narne Construction P. Ltd. vs. Union of India & Ors. etc. reported in (2012) 5 (SCC 359).

DECISION

9. Having meticulously parsed the judicial precedence cited in this appeal, we find that the factual matrics underpinning Ganeshlal and Dr. Sumanta Dutta fail to mirror the unique complexities of the matter currently before us.

10. Whereas, from the bedrock of authorities, cited on behalf of respondents, the following cornerstone principle is distilled :

“...The sale price was for the virgin land but included the development of sites and provision of infrastructure.......... It is, therefore, manifest that the transaction between the parties is not a sale simpliciter but coupled with obligations for development and provision of infrastructure. Inevitab