MEERUT DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. RAVINDRA LAL BATRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed against an order dated 31.10.2018 passed by U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow ( in short, the State Commission) in Appeal No. 2304 of 2008 and Appeal no. 1896 of 2008 whereby the appeal of the petitioner against the order of the District Forum dated 11.08.2008 in CC No.130 of 2008 was dismissed. The order is impugned on the ground that plot was a commercial plot and that there was no averment in the complaint necessitated in view of Section 2 ( d) of the Act. It is submitted that respondent is not a consumer and, therefore, the Fora below had acted beyond its jurisdiction and order is liable to be dismissed.

(2.) I have heard the arguments and perused the record. From the perusal of the record, it is apparent that complainant when filed his complaint has clearly mentioned in para 11 (a) of his complaint that plot was allotted under a residential scheme. Counsel has argued that in para 2 of the complaint, complainant has stated that plot was a commercial plot and hence it was a commercial plot.

(3.) What Section 2 (1) (d) of the Act prohibits is not the nature of the plot but its use. Section states that consumer who avails services for any commercial purpose or buys property for commercial purpose is not a consumer. The petitioner despite service of notice of complaint did not attend the proceedings before the District Forum and did not file any written version and, therefore, it is apparent that there was no challenge to the averments made by the complainant in his complaint. By way of his uncontradicted testimony, he has duly proved the fact averred in the complaint that the plot was under the residential scheme. There is no evidence on record that petitioner was going to use the said plot for the commercial purpose. The argument of counsel, therefore, has no merit.