MOUNT LITERA ZEE SCHOOL & ANR. Vs. M/S. M.A. SIDDIQUI CONSTRUCTION & ANR. KURKAWALA, DOIWALA, DEHRADUN, UTTRAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mount Litera Zee School along with its Chairman Aditya Verma has filed the instant consumer complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party contractor in the contracted work for the construction of the school building assigned to the opposite parties.

(2.) On bare reading of the complaint the question arises as to whether the complainants are consumers as envisaged under Sec. 2 (1) (d) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and if not whether the complainants have locus standi to maintain the consumer complaint? Sec. 2 (1) (d) (ii) of the Act defines the term Consumer as under:-

(3.) The allegation of the complainants is that they had hired/availed of services of the opposite parties for construction of the school building and the opposite parties were deficient in service because there were number of deficiencies in the construction work undertaken by the opposite parties. Thus, clause (ii) of Sec. 2 (1) (d) of the Act is relevant for our purpose. On bare reading of the aforesaid provision, it is clear that definition of consumer as given in Sec. 2 (1) (d) (ii) of the Act carves out an exception that the person hiring or availing of service for commercial purpose is not a consumer.