CHATUR SINGH vs Urban Improvement Trust

THIS appeal under Sec. 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (No. 68 of 1986) ("the Act" herein) has been filed by the complainants against the order dated 19.4.89 passed by the District Forum, Udaipur in Complaint Case No. 30/N.V.C./89 by which the complaint was dismissed. The complainants filed the complaint on 9.2.89 before the District Forum, Udaipur Para 5 of the complaint reads as under: - YAHA KI VIPAKSHI KE SATH YAHA ANUBANDH HUA THA KI RUPAYA 25 RUPAYA PACHEES RUPAYA VARG FEET KE ANUSAR PLOT ALOTKIYA JAVEGA. VIPAKSHI KEE AUR SE PRARTHIGAN TO PLOT NO. 6A ALOT KIYA GAYA JISKA TAHAL PRARTHIGAN KO UKT PLOT PUR KABJA NAHEEN DIYA. The complainant has sought the following reliefs: - PRARTHNA - PRARTHIGAN NIMN HAI: - (A) YAHA KI PRARTHIGAN KO PARA NO. 1 MEI ANKIT DUKAN KE NAP KI ATHVA VYAVSAYIK PLOT NO. 6A ATHVA ANYA ISI SIZE KA YA JYADA SIZE KA PLOT VIPAKSHI SE DILANE KA ADESH PRADAN KARA, VIPAKSHI SE KABJA KARAYA JAVE. ISKE ALAVA 100/- EK SOU RUPAYA MASIK BATAUR MUAVJA TARIKH 22.11.65 SE TA- SUPURDGI TAK DILAYA JAVE. (B) YAHA KI KHARCHA MUKADAMA PRARTHIGAN KO DILAYA JAVE. (C) YAHA KI ANYA KOYEE DAD JO PRARTHIGAN PANE KE ADHIKARI HO DILAYE JAVE.

NOTICE were issued. Two photostat copies of the orders of the Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur were filed alongwith the complaint. The Opposite Party resisted the complaint on various grounds. The principal objection taken was that the District Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain, try and adjudicate the complaint under the Act. In other words it was submitted on behalf of the Opposite Party that the complaint is not maintainable under Sec. 12 of the Act. The District Forum heard the arguments on the question of the maintainability of the complaint and by order dt. 19.4.89 dismissed the complaint, holding that on the basis of the averments made in the complaint, it cannot be heard by District Forum. Hence this appeal as afore- said. The presumption was drawn against the respondent vide order-sheet dated 19.6.89 that he has been served and his appearance was awaited. Next date fixed was 6.7.89. On that date no body appeared on behalf of the respondent and, there- fore, we were left with no alternative but to hear the learned Counsel for the appellants in support of the appeal.

We have carefully considered the averments made in the complaint and also the reply thereto. The only question involved in this appeal is whether the District Forum was right in holding that it had no jurisdiction to try the complaint under the Act. It was submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellants that the District Forum misdirected itself when it considered the question that the plot, which was allotted, does not fall within the definition of the "goods" as defined in Sec. 2(1)(i) of the Act. According to the learned Counsel, the Opposite Party failed to render "Service" as envisaged by Sec. 2(1)(o) of the Act, inasmuch as it did not allot the land to the complainant despite its own order. It was urged by the learned Counsel that there was "deficiency" within the meaning of Sec. 2(1)(g) of the Act, in regard to the "service" to be rendered by the Opposite Party and so the case falls within the four corners of the Act. We have examined the averments made in the complaint and have already extracted para 5 of the complaint as well as the reliefs claimed by the complainant. "Com- plainant" "complaint" and "consumer dispute" have been defined in Sec. 2(1)(b), (c) and (e) of the Act respectively. It is not necessary to reproduce these definitions. Consumer has been defined in Sec. 2(1)(d) of the Act. It was follows: - "(d) "consumer" means any person who, - (i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or (ii) hires any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes and beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person." According to his definition consumer is a person who buys goods for consideration or hires any service for consideration Sec. 2(1)(i) defines "goods" as under: - "(i) "goods" means goods as defined in the Sale of Goods Act, 1930;"

SEC. 2(7) of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 gives the definition of goods as follows: - "(7) "goods" means every kind of moveable property other than actionable claims and money; and includes stock and shares, growing crops, gross and things attached to or forming part of the land which are agreed to be severed before sale or under the contract of sale;"

It is therefore, clear that every kind of moveable property, a consumer buys is "good" under the Act. According to the definition contained in Sec. 2(1)(d) of the Act, a consumer is a person who buys goods for consideration. The complainant was allotted plot as his shop was demolished during the emergency by the State and in exchange of that the allotment was made. The complainant was allotted plot in pursuance of the agreement between him and the UTI. In this case the Opposite Party failed to the allot the plot which is immovable property to the complainant according to the terms of the agreement. Failure to perform the terms of the agreement in respect of immovable property cannot be called a "deficiency" in "service" as contemplated by the Act. Having considered the reasons given by the District Forum in the light of the relevant provisions of the Act and the averments made in the complaint, we are of the opinion that no valid exception can be taken to the order passed by the District Forum. The complaint which was filed by the complainant- appellant was rightly dismissed as it could not be tried by the District Forum under the Act.

THE result is that this appeal fails and it is hereby dismissed without any order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.