(1.) The complainant / appellant who is based in USA and is a US citizen filed two separate consumer complaints, alleging therein that he had booked two bungalows, bungalow No. 15 and Bungalow No. 16 with the respondent in a project namely 'Pushpak Hills Scheme'. This is also his case that as and when he came to India, he found that the other allottees had been given possession and were living in their respective bungalows allotted to them by the respondent. His allegation is that when he demanded possession of the bungalows booked by him, the respondent demanded more consideration, and therefore, he was compelled to make an additional payment of Rs.15.00 lacs to him. Since the possession of the allotted bungalow was not delivered to him, the complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of two separate complaints, one in respect of bungalow No.15 and the other in respect of bungalow No.16.
(2.) The complaints were resisted by the respondent, who took a preliminary objection that the said complaints were barred by limitation. On merits, it was alleged that the complainant was a financer who had financed a loan of Rs.1.00 crore and that the allotment letters in respect of the bungalows were issued to him only by way of security of the amount taken as loan from him. It was also stated in the written version filed by the respondent that the bungalow in question had been allotted to their true purchaser on 15.12.2004 and possession was also given to them in the year 2005, which was very much in the knowledge of the complainant.
(3.) The State Commission having dismissed the consumer complaints, on the ground that the complainant was not a consumer within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act, he is before this Commission, by way of these appeals.