TARA SINGH Vs. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We are deciding a bunch of four appeals bearing Nos.500 to 503 all of 2003 vide this common order which is being passed in Appeal No.503 of 2003, as the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II [for sort hereinafter referred to as the District Forum] has passed the main order dated 13.8.2003 in Complaint Case No.288/2003 out of which the present Appeal No.503 has arisen.

(2.) The District Forum dismissed the complaint cases for want of jurisdiction and held the complaints not being maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [for short hereinafter referred to as the C. P. Act] as amended upto date. The District Forum held that the complainants did not fall within the definition of a 'consumer' as defined under Sec.2 (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, as amended up-to-date as the purpose for which the commercial site had been purchased by the complainants was commercial purpose and the site in question is situated in a commercial locality. The District Forum further held that it was not pleaded by the complainants nor stated in their affidavits that they had purchased the commercial plot exclusively for earning their livelihood by way of self-employment. The District Forum dismissed all these complaint cases in limine and left the complainants to their remedy of approaching the appropriate Court, Forum or Authority of competent jurisdiction. Notice of these appeals was served on the respondents, who put in appearance through Ms. Deepali Puri, Advocate.

(3.) The short point to be considered for us in these bunch of appeals is that whether the appellants/complainants are consumers or not. The learned Counsel for the appellants contended that the District Forum has not followed the procedure laid down under the Consumer Protection Act and should have issued the notice to the O. P. for filing the reply and thereafter giving opportunity to both the parties to adduce their evidence. It has been further contended that the District Forum has not taken into consideration the fact that it has been pleaded by the appellant that the plot in question was purchased by the appellants to earn their livelihood. It is next contended that the District Forum has not taken into consideration that the O. P. is stopped by their own act and conduct from raising such a plea of commercial purpose as the parties had been already litigating since 1999 and the complaint filed by the complainant pertaining to the same plots of the same complainants, for providing basic amenities had been allowed by the State Commission vide order dated 9.5.2002. The learned Counsel for the appellants placed reliance on the authorities in 2003 (1) CPC 25, whereby the Hon'ble National Commission allowed the complaint of an SCF which was purchased in open auction and 2003 (1) CON. LT 553, wherein it was held by the Hon'ble National Commission that if the goods are purchased for earning livelihood, the same falls within the definition of consumer.