DIRECTOR REHABILITATION Vs. R K SRIVASTAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 19.7.2003 whereby the complaint of the complainant was allowed.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that Sh. R. K. Srivastava had filed the application for allotment of 150 sq. mts. of land in the Tehri Rehabilitation Scheme. It is alleged that the complainant was residing in Tehri and working as a teacher. He had deposited a sum of Rs.750/- but he has taken back his deposit. The opposite party contested the petition and alleged that the complainant is not a consumer. It may be true that the complainant is entitled to such a plot. It may be further true that certain other persons, may be hundred in numbers, have been allotted such land. A list of about 23 persons has been main dictum of Indian Constitution. But here our jurisdiction is very limited. We are not sitting as a Civil Court to grant remedy in all disputes of civil nature. We are also not sitting as a High Court to see that constitutional rights are preserved. We are only Consumer Courts and our jurisdiction is confined to consumer disputes only. The main question which was advanced was that the complainant is not a consumer. If he is not a consumer, he may have 100% case in his favour but we are sorry we shall not give him any relief.

(3.) The complainant has deposited a sum of Rs.750/-. He has taken his amount back. He had, therefore, no consideration left with the appellant for which he had said that he had tried to hire or purchase services of land. In the absence of any consideration the complainant cannot be a consumer. The learned Counsel for the complainant referred the decision of this Forum , Director, Rehabilitation V/s. Sh. Vishnu Pal Singh Parmar.,2003 1 UC 193 In Para 3 of this ruling there is specific mention that the complainant has deposited the purchase price. There is nothing in this ruling that he has taken back the purchase price. We agree that the allottees for consideration are consumers under the Act but in this case neither any allotment has been made to the complainant, nor there is any consideration which he has paid. So the ruling shall not apply to the facts of the present case. In the ruling of West Bengal Electronics Industry Development Corporation Ltd. V/s. State Commission and Ors., 2000 AIR(Cal) 80 the complainant had already paid the entire premium amount of Rs.2,51,400/-. Here in this case nothing has been paid. Similar is the position with the ruling Punjab and Haryana Page 283, Haryana Urban Development Authority V/s. Raj Dulhari. This ruling appears not to have been read by the complainant, the ruling is entirely against him. In this ruling 1280 persons have applied for applicants who did not seek refund. Even notice for refund was sent to her but she did not take the refund of the sum. The deposit remained with Haryana Urban Development Authority. Therefore, relief was given to her by the State Commission but in this case the complainant has himself withdrew his earnest money. How and why did he withdrew is not our concern. If he was forced to withdraw, he may go to the Civil Court and may get relief but since no consideration has been paid to the appellant, the complainant is not a consumer. Since he is not a consumer, his complaint shall not lie and is liable to be dismissed. ORDER the appeal is allowed. The judgment and order dated 19.7.2003 is hereby set aside. The complaint is dismissed. However, in the circumstances of the case cost throughout shall be easy. Appeal allowed