Delay of 33 days in filing the revision petition is condoned.

          Urban Improvement Trust Jodhpur, now known as Jodhpur Development Authority, petitioner herein, was the opposite party before the District Forum.

          Respondent/complainant submitted an application for allotment of residential house in Kirti Nagar Extension Residential Housing Scheme of the petitioner Trust along with sum of Rs.200/- on

-2-

24.3.1983.  Complainant/respondent was asked to pay another sum of Rs.3,400/- as Registration Fee in the year 1994.  Respondent deposited the sum of Rs.3,400/- in the year 1997.  No Letter of Allotment had been issued.  Aggrieved by this, respondent filed the complaint before the District Forum.

          District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to allot residential house in Kirti Nagar Extension Residential Scheme within a period of two months at the market rate prevailing on 18.8.2008.  Rs.20,000/- were awarded by way of compensation and Rs.2,000/- by way of costs.

          Aggrieved by this, petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission which has been dismissed by the impugned order.

          Counsel for the petitioner relies upon a judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in “MORGAN STANLEY MUTUAL FUND VS. KARTICK DAS, (1994) 4 SCC 225” to contend that the petitioner would not fall under the category of ‘Consumer’ as he was a prospective buyer/investor.

-3-

          After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we find substance in the submission made by counsel for the petitioner.  Hon’ble Supreme Court on a contention raised that prospective investor is not a ‘Consumer’ and, therefore, the complaint on its behalf is not maintainable, held as under:

         “31.   Therefore, it is after allotment, rights may arise as per the contract (Article of Association of Company).  But certainly not before allotment.  At that stage, he is only a prospective investor (sic in) future goods.  The issue was yet to open on 27-4-1993.  There is no purchase of goods for a consideration nor again could he be called the hirer of the services of the company for a consideration.  In order to satisfy the requirement of above definition of consumer, it is clear that there must be a transaction of buying goods for consideration under Section 2(1)(d)(i) of the said Act.  The definition contemplates the pre-existence of a completed transaction of a sale and purchase.  If regard is had to the definition of complaint under the Act, it will be clear that no prospective investor could fall under the Act.”

-4-

            Respectfully following the aforesaid judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we set aside the orders passed by the fora below.  Revision petition is allowed.  No costs.