B.K. Prabha vs Secretary, Kendriya Upadyarasanga

1. This Revision Petition arises out of an order passed by the State Commission dismissing the appeal filed against the order of the District Forum where the complaint filed by the petitioner had been dismissed on grounds of maintainability and by holding that petitioner was not a consumer.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/complainant had deposited certain amounts with the respondent Society -- where he was a member -- for allotment of residential plot. Since the plot was not allotted, thus alleging deficiency on the part of the respondent a complaint cama to be filed by the petitioner before the District Forum, who after hearing the parties and relying upon the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Commission dismissed the complaint and held that the petitioner is not a consumer. An appeal filed before the State Commission met the same fate hence the revision petition.

3. We heard the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner who only pleaded for a wider interpretation of the word 'Consumer' as expounded in Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta, III (1993) CPJ 7 (SC)=(1994) 1 SCC 243, by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

4. We have gone through the judgment (supra) and find that both the subject of 'housing' and the 'statutory authorities' have been brought within the ambit of Consumer Forums. The basic question still remains; how does the complainant petitioner come within the definition of consumer ? By just becoming a member of a Housing Society one does not become a 'consumer'. Thus Commission had severally held that it is only after the allotment of a plot/flat/house which confer certain rights. It is the delivery/possession, after issue of allotment letter, which can be a subject-matter of deficiency of services. Here in this case by merely becoming a member of society does not amount to hiring the services of opposite party by the petitioner. Since in this case no allotment could be made for whatever reasons -- he cannot be considered to fall within the definition of consumer. The order of the District Forum is a well reasoned and is as per settled law and has rightly been affirmed by the State Commission and does not call for any interference by the Commission. Thus petition is devoid of merit, hence dismissed.

5. No order as to costs.