AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
7 paragraphs · 469 words[1] This revision petition is directed against the order of Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow (in short, "State Commission") dated 12.3.2015 whereby State Commission dismissed the appeal No.98/2009 preferred by the petitioner/complainant. The State Commission concurred with the findings of the District Forum and dismissed the consumer complaint.
[2] We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
[3] At the outset, it may be mentioned that this consumer complaint has been filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondents in relation to the allotment of the industrial plot for setting up a factory. The consumer complaint was filed in May 2003. In April, the definition of the consumer was amended by Amendment Act 50 of 1993 w.e.f. 15.3.2003. Section 2 (1) (d) of the Act defines the term "Consumer" as under : 2. (1) (d) "Consumer" means any person who,
(ii) [hires or avails of] 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 any beneficiary of such services other than the person who [hires or avails of] 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 [but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose] ;
{Explanation For the purposes of this clause, "Commercial purpose does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment}.
[4] On reading of the above, it is clear that subject to the exception carved out in the above definition a person is a "consumer", who hires or avails of the services for consideration. The above essential element of the definition of consumer is missing in this case. Ongoing through the complaint, it cannot be disputed that the petitioner has availed of services of the respondents for a commercial purpose, i.e., allotment of the industrial plot for setting up a factory. Thus, petitioner, in our view, is not a "Consumer" as envisaged under definition reproduced above. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner had applied for industrial plot for setting up a factory exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment. Thus, it is establish that the petitioner is not a "Consumer" and, therefore, he has no locus standi to maintain the consumer complaint. Thus, the complaint has been rightly dismissed.
[5] In view of the above, we do not find reason to interfere in the impugned orders of the fora below. Revision petition is, accordingly, dismissed.