Petitioner, who was the complainant before the District Forum, has filed the revision petition.

           Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner deposited an amount of Rs.3,64,000/- on 2.12.1997 with the respondent society for allotment of a flat.  Flat was not allotted.  Ultimately, the petitioner applied for refund and the amount was returned without any interest, in Jan. 2004, which was accepted by the petitioner.  Petitioner filed a complaint before the District Forum.

          The District Forum did not grant interest but only directed the respondent to pay a compensation of Rs.5,000/- for deficiency in service alongwith cost of Rs.2,000/-.  Aggrieved by this order, petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission.  The State Commission allowed the appeal and increased the compensation to Rs.50,000/- which included the cost as well.  Not satisfied with the relief, the petitioner has filed the present revision petition.

           Petitioner at no stage, was allotted a flat.  He was a prospective investor.  The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in “Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund Vs. Kartick Das” [Civil Appeal No. 4584 & 4587 of 1994 decided on 20.05.1994] has held that prospective investor is not a consumer within the meaning of section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The respondent has already been directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- which has not been challenged by the respondent by filing the revision petition.  We find no infirmity in the order passed by the State Commission.  Dismissed.