PREM KANTA Vs. HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -THIS order will govern the disposal of R. P. Nos. 3326 of 2003, 3327 of 2003, 3328 of 2003 and 3182 of 2003 which arise out of a common order dated 21. 7. 2003 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Chandigarh.

(2.) FACTS giving rise to these revisions lie in a narrow compass. Petitioners had individually filed Complaint Case Nos. 493 of 2002, 494 of 2002, 495 of 2002 and 496 of 2002 against the respondent-authority which were disposed of by the District Forum by a common order dated 10. 10. 2002 with direction to the authority to allot certain plots to the petitioners and petitioners were to deposit 10% of the earnest money along with application (s) for allotment of plot (s ). Dissatisfied with Forum's order, the respondent authority filed four appeals which were allowed and the order of District Forum was set aside and complaints dismissed. In its said order dated 10. 10. 2002, the District Forum had set out the facts of Complaint Case No. 493 of 2002, Surendra Kumar and Anr. v. HUDA and Anr. It was alleged in the complaint that the complainants were the owner in possession of land measuring 2416 sq. yds. which was acquired vide award No. 4 dated 7. 5. 1992 for carving the residential/commercial plots in Sectors 13 and 17, HUDA, Panipat. Under the oustees scheme, the Authority had failed to allot plot of 10 Marlas each to the complainants. Direction was, therefore, sought to the authority to allot plots to them. In remaining complaints identical allegations were made by the complainants whose lands were acquired by the authority. In the written version, one of the objections taken by the authority was that the complainants/petitioners were not the 'consumers' and complaints were, therefore, not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short 'the Act' ). However, this objection was not gone into by the District Forum. In appeal while dealing with this objection, the State Commission held:

(3.) SUBMISSION advanced by Ms. Meenakshi Arora for the petitioners is that the conclusion reached by the State Commission in regard to the petitioners not being 'consumer' is erroneous. It was pointed out that the complaints filed by other oustees had been allowed by the District Fora and pursuant to the orders of Fora allotment of plots had been made by the authority and possession thereof also given. For appreciating the above submission, it is necessary to refer to the definition of 'consumer' as given in Section 2 (1) (d) (ii) of the Act. Same reads thus: