AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
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.
VERY briefly the facts of the case are that the petitioner, who is a custodian of areas developed for setting up ''Industries'', had developed such one site near Gwalior, where there was also provisions for common facilities like Nursing Home. The respondent/complainant, being in the same trade, applied for and was allotted a plot for opening a Nursing Home in the Malanpur Industrial Area. He paid the full price, yet seeing no development in the area, like housing colonies and shopping complex and others, for benefit of which the Nursing Home was to come up, the respondent applied for refund of money with interest and along with compensation and cost. Not getting the same, a complaint was filed before the District Forum, who after hearing the parties dismissed the complaint on the ground that the proposed Nursing Home was commercial activity, hence falls outside the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (CPA) under Section 2(1)(d). Aggrieved by this order, an appeal was filed by the respondent, which was allowed and the petitioner was directed to refund Rs. 1,41,295 along with interest @ 9% and cost of Rs. 2,000. Aggrieved by this order this revision petition has been filed before us. We heared the learned Counsel for the petitioner at some length and also perused the memorandum of revision petition filed before us. The main or the only ground advanced before us is that since the petitioner''s Nursing Home would fall within the commercial activity, hence he cannot be deemed to be a ''consumer'' as rightly held by the District Forum, State Commission was not correct in setting aside the order of the District Forum. Hence, the only point whether setting up of Nursing Home comes within the definition of ''Consumer'' or not? We need not go any further than to quote the following from the order passed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta, III (1993) CPJ 7 (SC)=AIR 1994 SC 787 : "......A Development Authority while developing the land or framing a scheme for housing discharges statutory duty the purpose and objective of which is service to the citizens. As pointed out earlier the entire purpose of widening the definitions is to include in it not only day-to-day buying of goods by a common man but even to such activities which are otherwise not commercial but professional or service oriented in nature. The provisions in the Act, namely, Lucknow Development Act, Delhi Development Act or Bangalore Development Act clearly provide for preparing plan, development or land, and framing of scheme, etc. Therefore if such authority undertakes to construct building or allot houses or building sites to citizens of the State either as amenity or as benefit then it amounts to rendering of service and will be covered in the expression ''service made available to potential users''........"
(Emphasis supplied)
Simple and plain reading of this observation from the above citation will make it clear that building used for professional or being service oriented in nature, will bring it within the jurisdiction of Consumer Forum and within the expression of ''Service'' made available to potential user as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. There is no disputing the fact that the respondent had applied for allotment of land for setting up a Nursing Home which was an amenity and cannot be disputed that it was service oriented. In view of the cited judgment, we need not deal with the plea of the petitioner any further except to state that the complainant''s complaint is very much covered by the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, in view of which the order passed by the State Commission cannot be faulted. We also hold the respondent -complainant to be a ''Consumer'' and the petitioner is service provider, in which he is found deficient. In view of above, we see no merit in the revision petition filed before us, hence dismissed. Revision Petition dismissed.