Case No. 30/2016   

IN THE MATTER OF

Sanjay Kumar Singh S/o Sri Latoori Singh R/o Mandu Mohalla Subhash Nagar Post Mandu Distt. Hathras

                                                         V/s

1. Aligarh Vikas Pradhikan, Aligarh by Sachiv
2. Sampati  Adhikari, Aligarh Vikas Pradhikan, Aligarh                                                                                      

CORAM

 Present:                                   

1. Shri Hasnain Qureshi, President
2. Shri Alok Upadhayay, Member
3. Smt. Purnima Singh Rajpoot,Member

PRONOUNCED by Shri Hasnain Qureshi, President

JUDGMENT

1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant before this commission for  the following reliefs-

1. The Op be directed to refund the amount Rs.60000 with the compound interest @ 9% per annum from 8.3.2013 till the present day.
2. The Op be directed to pay compensation for committing the criminal act of the recovery of the money on making advertisement without availability of the plot and to order to lodge the F.I.R. against the person responsible for the act.  

2. The Complainant has stated that his elder son Sanjay Kumar Singh had authorized him to file the complaint who is not available at Aligarh. He had submitted a demand draft dated 7.3.2013 for Rs. 60000 in ICICI Bank, Aligarh on 8.3.2013 for allotment of a plot by the OP on the basis of proposal of new residential project advertised in the brochure. Having passed a long interval, no information was received for allotment of the plot and he applied under the RTI Act for providing information whereby he came to know that the proposed scheme had come to an end on account of non-availability of the land and no allotment was made and there is no possibility of allotment of the plot.     
3. Op did not deny in WS about the payment of Rs.60000 through draft dated 7.3.2013 for allotment of the plot under the scheme advertised by the OP and submitted that the complainant is entitled for refund of the amount with interest @ 4% per annum after one year of the deposit as per clause 9 of the proposed scheme.  
4. Complainant has filed his affidavit and papers in support of his pleadings. Ops have also filed affidavit in support of their pleadings.
5. We have perused the material available on record and heard the parties counsel.
6. The first question of consideration before us is whether the complainant is entitled to any relief?
7. Admittedly, complainant deposited the amount Rs.60000 for allotment of the plot under the proposed scheme of the OP and thus the matter involves the sale of a plot by way of allotment. In view of definition of consumer U/s 2(7) (ii) of the Act consumer is a person who avails of any services for a consideration. It means that a person who purchases a plot is not covered within the definition of a consumer as no service is involved therein. It becomes clear by the provision of section 2(37) (a) of the Act that seller of a immovable property is not service provider unless such person is engaged in the sale of constructed house or in the constructions of homes or flats. Such a service provider renders the services to the buyer who is the service recipient and is a consumer. In the present case it was nowhere mentioned in the complaint that the OP was under obligation to construct the house or flat on the plot to be allotted to the complainant. We are of the view that the complainant is not a consumer and no consumer dispute is involved in the case and the complaint is liable to be dismissed for want of jurisdiction of the District Commission to hear and decide the present case.   
8. The question formulated above is decided against the complainant.
9. We hereby dismiss the complaint.
10. A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties as per rule as mandated by Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.
11. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this judgment.