Tamil Nadu housing board colony ASSOCIATION vs TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD

APPELLANT was the complainant before the State Commission, Tamil Nadu, where he had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent -Tamil Nadu Housing Board.

THE basic features of the complaint was that the respondent-opposite party while allotting H.I.G type of houses to the complainants (78 in all) has not provided common amenities like park, CPC, over head tank, play ground, shopping complex, primary school, nursery school, office site, as provided under the lay-out plan and the agreement. THE complaint was resisted by the opposite party. After hearing the parties, the State Commission dismissed the complaint on the ground that the complaint filed by the ''association'' was not maintainable under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act for which it relied upon its own order in the case Rail Nagar & Adhisankarar Nagar (Thruvalangadu) Welfare Association v. G. Nagaswamy & Ors. Today, none present on behalf of appellant and none present from the side of the respondent, despite knowledge of today''s date. Since written arguments have been submitted by the appellant, we go on to pass the order based on material available on record.

There is no dispute that the complainant is an ''association'' of the allottees of houses allotted by Tamil Nadu Housing Board. Section 2(1)(b) defines the word ''Complainant", which reads as under : (i) a consumer; or (ii) any voluntary consumer association registered under the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956) or under any other law for the time being in force; or (iii) the Central Government or any State Government; or (iv) "one or more consumers, where there are numerous consumers having the same interest".

THERE could not have been a better explanation applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case to file a complaint in respect of common facilities which were to be made available by the respondent-opposite party. This point was settled by this Commission in the case of M/s. Shri Laxmi Cotton Traders Ltd. v. Central Warehousing Corporation and Ors., III (1996) CPJ 22 (NC)=1986-99 Consumer 4858 (NS) vide our order dated 21.6.96 it was clearly held by this Commission that:- "A body of any persons forming an association in pursuance of a common purpose and acting jointly are ''persons'' within the extended definition and are consumers within the ambit and scope of the Act".

As stated earlier, Section 2(1)(b)(iv) leaves us no option but to take ''body of the complaints in the form of an association'' as a consumer as long as the issue relates to common facilities. This is precisely the situation in the instant case, leading the complainants to file the complaint before a Consumer Forum.

IN view of the above judgment passed by us (supra) and also in view of the definition of complainant given in Consumer Protection Act, 1986, we hold the complainant-appellant to be a ''consumer'' and in our view State Commission erred in dismissing the complaint as an erroneous interpretation / comprehension of Section 2(1)(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In the aforementioned circumstances, order of the State Commission could not be sustained and is set aside. The case is remanded back to the State Commission for hearing afresh after giving notice to the parties and passing order as per law following the procedure laid down in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Appeal stand allowed in above terms. Appeal allowed.