THAKKAR SHAILESH J.DAWDA vs MURLIDHAR ACHUTH KAMATH

PETITIONER was the opposite party before the District Forum where the respondent/complainant had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner.

BRIEFLY put the facts of the case are that the complainants, in response to an advertisement floated by the petitioner for purchase of bungalow plots applied for the same, got allotment, paid certain amounts but when delivery of the possession was not forthcoming for want of clearance from the Competent Authority (original plot being agricultural land it was to be converted for non-agricultural purposes and lay-out plan was to be approved), the complainant moved the District Forum for refund of deposited amount with interest. Petitioner remained absent in spite of notice, hence, based on material on record the District Forum passed order directing the petitioner to refund the amounts deposited by the complainants with interest and costs of Rs. 1,000/-. Review application filed by the petitioner before the District Forum was dismissed as not being maintainable. An appeal filed against the original order before the State Commission by the petitioner was dismissed, hence, this revision petition. Sole point of law agitated before us by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that Consumer Forums have no jurisdiction to entertain such complaints as it relates to sale of immovable property. Complainants are not consumers, Further, he relies upon this Commission''s order, 1986-99 Consumer 3656 (NS), in M/s. Sri Krishna Oil and Metal Industries v. Rajasthan State Industrial and Investment Corporation. Complainants who were in person stated that the orders of the lower Forums do not call for any interference. They are correct orders.

SINCE the point of law involved is the same and complainants being different, the petitioners being the same, we go on to dispose of these two revision petitions through a single order.

IN our view, the attempt of the petitioner to oust our jurisdiction is apparently misplaced. So is the citation given by him. The citation related to an order passed by this Commission on 9th July, 1992, learned Counsel, perhaps, failed to notice that the C.P.A. was amended in June, 1993 by virtue of which definition of service as defined in Section 2(1)(o) of C.P.A., 1986 has come to include ''housing construction''. There is no dispute that plot in question was for construction of a Bungalow - a house. In our view house includes plots as well hence covered by the provisions of C.P.A., 1986. In the light of this amendment in the Act, in our view, no jurisdictional error has been committed by both the lower Forums in entertaining both the complaints by the two complainants in both the cases before us. Complainants are very much ''Consumers'' as defined in C.P.A., 1986. We see no merit in the revision petitions filed before us and are dismissed with costs of Rs. 2,000/- in each case payable by the petitioner to the complainants within eight weeks of this order.