Delhi

East Delhi

CC/81/2023

BRIJESH KUMAR TIWARI & ANR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

HERO HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED - Opp.Party(s)

UMESH CHANDRA MISHRA & SACHIN CHAUDHARY, ADV.

31 Jul 2023

ORDER

Date                :           31.07.2023

Case No.         :           81/2023        

                                                                                                                         

Present            :           Sh. Umesh Chand Mishra Counsel for Complainant

 

He submits that he is not in position to file any other documents than that of which have already been filed.  He argued the matter further.  Basically, the contention of the complainant is that they had purchased a house and took loan from OP who assured for providing subsidy in terms of the PMAY Scheme but the official of OP instead of applying for the total payable subsidy on the amount of Rs.1670000/- i.e. the loan amount, which he applied for and which was sanctioned.  The OP only applied for subsidy of Rs.43,000/- and as such he only received an amount of Rs.18,272/- as subsidy and therefore OP was deficient in providing services w.r.t. the subsidy which was available to the complainant. 

The Commission has heard the arguments on the last date of hearing as well as today and enquired as to what is the scheme by which complainant is competent to have the subsidy and secondly how the OP is being made a party and as to how he is a consumer of OP1 for the purpose of providing certain services of availing subsidy.  Neither, the said scheme has been placed on record nor it has been explained as to how the OP is a service provider for the complainant and for what consideration, he has paid to OP for availing his such services.  A consumer has been defined under section 2 (7) which reads as under:

As per this section any person who-

 (i) buys any goods 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 user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose, or.........

 

7) (ii) hires or avails of any service 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 service 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 service for any commercial purpose. 

 

As per this provision any services which the OP has to provide free of charges would not make the complainant a consumer within the definition of Consumer Protection Act although he may be one of the customer of the OP.  There is a substantive difference between a customer in simple words and a consumer in legal terms.  A customer becomes consumer of the OP if he qualifies the test of the definition as mentioned in Consumer Protection Act.  In the entire complaint it is no where mentioned by the complainant as to what consideration he was supposed to pay or he has paid to the OP for availing such services therefore he even otherwise is not a consumer qua the OP.  Therefore, the complaint case is rejected. 

File be consigned to Record Room.