EXECUTIVE ENGINEER AND ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER ERODE HOUSING UNIT vs M.Ravichandran

THE opposite party Executive Engineer and Administrative Officer, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Erode Housing Unit, against whom an award has been passed by the District Forum is the appellant. THE complainant was a Jeep Driver in the Agriculture Department at Erode. He obtained a G.O. dated 14.12.1995 directing the opposite party Tamil Nadu Housing Board to allot him a house bearing No. C.54 in Periyar Nagar or any house in the next arising vacancy in the Housing Unit at Erode for his occupation as a tenant. THE case of the complainant is that in spite of the said order of the Government the opposite party failed to allot the house bearing No. C.54 nor any other house. This amounted to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Thus alleging the complaint has been filed.

THE opposite party contended that the house bearing No. C.54 had already been allotted, and subsequent allotments were made to others as per the roster and when the serial number of the complainant was reached as per the roster he would be allotted a house. THErefore, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. He further contended that the complainant was not a consumer within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act. The District Forum held that the complainant was a consumer as against the opposite party and that the opposite party was guilty of deficiency in service. On this finding, it directed the opposite party to allot to the complainant any one of the houses bearing Nos. C-33, C-51 or C-54 and also to pay compensation of Rs. 3,000/-.

Now in the appeal it is submitted that the finding of the District Forum that the complainant is a consumer is erroneous. We entirely agree with this submission.

ACCORDING to the complainant the Government have passed an order in G.O. Ms. No. 203, dated 28.4.1994 directing the opposite party to allot a particular house and if not any house that would fall vacant subsequently but the opposite party failed to comply with that order and this amounted to deficiency in service on their part. We do not agree. The complainant has not hired or availed of any service of the opposite party, but he has got only an order of the Government directing the opposite party for allotment of a house. If that order has not been complied with by the opposite party the complainant could report to the Government about it. But the complainant having not hired or availed of any service of the opposite party for consideration, he cannot be a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. In this view of the matter, the appeal is allowed, the order of the District Forum is set aside and the complaint is dismissed. However there will be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.