JAYANT KUMAR SAHU Vs. PRASANNA KUMAR PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellant was the complainant before the State Commission where the Respondent had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Appellant. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant with a view to construct a nursing home and also a shopping complex and residential area entered into an arrangement with the Appellant for construction for which certain payments were made. Appellant was to complete the construction work of the building within a reasonable period of say 2 to 21/2 years but he failed to execute the work and hence a legal notice was issued to him to which no reply was given. In the meantime the complainant using its own sources complete the walls as also completed the work of roof. When the work was not getting started /completed after receipt of net Rs. 6 lakhs, a complaint was filed before the State Commission which has contested by the Appellant but the State Commission after hearing the parties passed two separate orders. Since, only a Member and the President of the Commission heard the complaint in this case two separate orders were passed -one by the Member of the State Commission and another by the President of the Commission both of them holding the Appellant deficient in rendering the service. While the Hon'ble Member by passing the order in the operative part of the order directed the Appellant to pay the cost of cement i.e., Rs. 20,000 and also Rs. 10,000 for damages and cost of proceedings fixed at Rs. 5,000, the Hon'ble President of the State Commission allowed the complaint with respect of paying compensation of Rs. 1,52,000 being the cost of laying roof by the Respondent -complainant and also cost of Rs. 10,000.

(2.) WE heard the Learned Counsel for the parties at some length. Two preliminary points were taken by the Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant that the Respondent complainant is not a consumer and secondly the building i.e., Nursing Home was for the commercial purpose. One need to deal with these issues keeping in mind the simple premise that 'construction' has been brought within the definition of consumer as read in Section 2(1)(2)(ii). This section along with the definition of 'services' has been elaborately dealt in the case of Lucknow Development Authority v. U.K. Gupta,, 3 (1993) CPJ 7 (SC), decided in Civil Appeal No. 6237 of 1990 decided on 5th November, 1993 wherein it is clearly mentioned that the Housing activities will come within the definition of rendering service thus making in this case the complainant a consumer. As far as objection taken by the Appellant relating to this being a commercial activity hence falling outside the purview of the Consumer Court, it need be clarified that under above section of CPA 'service' rendered for commercial service have come to be excluded only w.e.f. 15th March, 2003. Before that date 'service' rendered for commercial purposes were within the ambit of the Consumer Forums. Hence we see no merit in this preliminary issue raised by the Appellant.

(3.) IN the aforementioned circumstances and material on record, we see no grounds to interfere with the order passed by the President of the State Commission which is upheld.