For the Appellant Mr SK Chawla, Advocate For the Respondent Mr Rahul Kr Verma, Advocate ORDER PER SUBHASH CHANDRA 1. The challenge in this appeal is to order dated 02.05.2017 in Complaint No. 561 of 2017 of the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (in short, “State Commission”) dismissing the complaint in limini. 2. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. 3. The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellant had applied for a plot of 220 square yards in the proposed Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar to house businesses connected with vehicles and transport on the outskirts of the city as per a scheme of the respondent. The appellant applied on 16.02.1984 along with an application fee of Rs 2,500/- and also paid Rs 25,000/- as first instalment acknowledged as per letter dated 26.05.1985. The respondent sent letters dated 26.05.1985 and 26.02.1986 asking for further instalments of Rs 25,000/- and Rs 50,000/- respectively towards development costs of the said Sanjay Gandhi Nagar. Admittedly, the appellant/complainant paid another Rs 25,000/- on 25.03.1986 to the respondent. Despite the above payments no plot was allotted to him and therefore the appellant approached the State Commission by way of Complaint no. 561 of 2017 alleging deficiency in service seeking compensation of Rs 50,00,000/- along with interest at 24% pa and Rs 55,000/- as litigation costs. The complaint was dismissed in limini on the ground that no allotment had been made and therefore the appellant was not a “consumer” under the Consumer Protection Act. This order is impugned before us on the ground that he was entitled to allotment with compensation and the State Commission had erred in placing reliance on the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in PUDA Vs Krishan Pal Chander 2010 CTJ 415 that a mere application for registration does not make the applicant a consumer. Appellant has placed reliance on order of the State Commission in Mohd Noorullah Shareef and Ors., vs Managing Director-cum-Chairman A P Transco and Ors., FA No. 352 of 2010 decided on 07.03.2018 which the State Commission has held to be not applicable, being under challenge. 4. Vide the impugned order, the State Commission has held that the order of the State Commission in Mohd Noorullah Shareef and Ors., (supra) was under challenge before the National Commission and hence could not be treated as a precedent. It also relied upon the judgement of this Commission in Slum and JJ Department Vs Vijay Singh and Anr., IV 2008 CPJ 280 wherein a refund of Rs 3000/- deposited by the respondent with interest at 15% p.a. was directed. Reliance was also placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Krishan Pal Chander (supra). It was held that the complaint was an abuse of the process of court and the complaint was dismissed in limini. 5. The issue in this case which falls for consideration is whether the appellant is a “consumer” under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 6. As per the Consumer Protection Act, a “consumer” is defined as in Section 2(1)(d) as under: (d) “consumer” means 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 (ii) hires or avails of any services 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 services 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 services for any commercial purpose; Explanation.— For the purposes of this clause, "commercial purpose" does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment; 7. From the record and the submissions made, it is manifest that the appellant had only registered under the scheme of the allotment of plots in the said Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar. Admittedly, he had paid certain sums towards registration and development cost as demanded by the respondent. It is also seen that the scheme of Transport Nagar had certain issues pertaining to accommodating persons relocated from the area acquired for a flyover for which reason the scheme did not progress. Be that as it may be, the respondent did not formally allot any plot in its scheme of Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar. In the absence of an allotment, the appellant cannot be considered a “consumer” under the Consumer Protection Act. No document has been brought on record to establish the promise of a ‘service’ against an agreed ‘consideration’ to substantiate by evidence that the appellant was promised a service within a period of time. In the absence of any such evidence, the contention of deficiency in service cannot be sustained. Therefore, the order of the State Commission cannot be faulted. 8. For the aforesaid reasons and in the facts and circumstances of this case, we find no reason to disturb the finding of the State Commission. The First Appeal is therefore dismissed as being without merits. Parties shall bear their own costs. Pending IAs, if any, are also disposed of with this order. | 
