JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision is directed against the order of the State Commission Delhi in Appeal No. 2011/569 dated 25.10.2013 whereby the State Commission while dismissing the appeal preferred against the order of the District Forum modified the order of the District Forum to the extent of reducing the interest on the account of delay in delivery of possession from 15% to 10%. 2. Briefly stated the facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are that petitioner Authority floated housing scheme 2006 for sale of constructed flats on “ as is where is basis” in various localities of Delhi. The complainant submitted an application dated 03.10.2006 and deposited earnest money of Rs.1,50,000/-. On draw of lot, the petitioner Authority allotted MIG Flat No.52, Pocket 23 Sector 24 Rohini, Delhi to the respondent complainant and issued him demand cum allotment letter dated 19.01.2007. In response to the demand letter, the complainant paid balance consideration amount of Rs.18,30,786/- on 17.04.2007. 3. The complainant on 26.04.2007 deposited the requisite documents needed before the delivery of possession with the petitioner Authority on 14.04.2007 and 26.04.2007. The delivery of possession was however delayed and the opposite party vide letter dated 17.03.2008 called upon the complainant to take possession of the flat from the site office and the physical possession was delivered vide possession slip (P-9) on 07.04.2008. Thereafter, the conveyance deed was executed in favour of the complainant on 03.06.2008. The case of the complainant is that he was entitled to physical possession of the flat in April 2007 as he had paid the entire consideration amount and completed formalities for delivery of possession by 26.04.2007. It is alleged that the petitioner Authority by delaying the delivery of possession has committed deficiency in service. As such, he is entitled to interest on the consideration amount from 18.04.2007 till 07.04.2008 when the possession was delivered. 4. The petitioner opposite party in its written statement took the preliminary objection that the consumer complaint is not maintainable as the respondent complainant is not a consumer under section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act (in short, ‘the Act’). It was also pleaded that the delay in delivery of possession occurred on account of failure of the respondent complainant to file the documents such as NOC from the bank and affidavit of undertaking of the complainant signifying his readiness to take possession of the flat. According to the petitioner, the requisite documents and affidavit were finally deposited by the complainant on 14.01.2008. Thereafter, the documents were processed and possession of the flat was delivered to the complainant on 17.03.2008 pursuant to which complainant took actual physical possession on 07.04.2008. 5. The District Forum on consideration of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner topay to the complainant interest on the deposited amount of Rs.18,30,786/- @ 15% from the date of deposit till the date of delivery of possession of the flat to the complainant. 6. Being aggrieved of the order of the District Forum, the petitioner Authority preferred an appeal and the State Commission vide the impugned order while maintaining the order of the District Forum reduced the amount of interest payable for the delayed payment from 15% p.a. to 10% p.a. 7. Mr.P.K.Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner has contended that the impugned order is without jurisdiction. Expanding on the argument, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the foras below have failed to appreciate that a constructed flat on ‘ as is where is basis’ was offered by the petitioner and as such, there is element of service in the contract and, therefore, the consumer complaint by the respondent is not maintainable. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in the matter of U.T.Chandigarh Administration & Ors.Vs. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. 2009 C.T.J. 486 (S.C.), Bangalore Development Authority vs. Syndicate Bank 2007 (6) SCC 711 and Consumer Unity & Trust Society vs. Chairman & Managing Director, Bank of Baroda, Calcutta & Ors. 1 (1995) CPJ 1 (S.C.) and also judgments of National Commission in the matters of Delhi Development Authority Vs. Sushil Kumar Sharma in RP No. 1128/2006 & RP No. 1527/2006 and Delhi Development Authority Vs. A.N.Sehgal 1 (1996) CPJ 34 (N.C.) 8. We have considered the rival contentions. The plea of the petitioner is that the State Commission has failed to appreciate that the consumer complaint itself was not maintainable because the respondent is not covered within the definition of ‘consumer’. The term ‘consumer’ has been defined viz-a-viz services in section 2 (i) (d) (ii) of the Act. The relevant provision is reproduced as under: “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 purposes”. 9. Undisputedly, the respondent complainant was allotted ready built MIG flat on ‘as is where is basis’ for consideration. On perusal of allotment letter Ex.PW1/3, we find that the petitioner Authority has not promised to render any service in respect of the subject flat to the complainant. As such, there being no element of service in the contract. The respondent Sandeep Khatri is not covered under the definition of consumer reproduced above. The relationship between the parties in our view is of purchaser and seller of the flat, which would be governed by the law of contract and not under the Act. 10. In view of the above, it is clear that respondent complainant is not a consumer as defined under section 2 (1) (d) of the Act. As such he could not have maintained the consumer complaint. Both the foras below have assumed the jurisdiction ignoring the aforesaid aspect of the matter. Thus, the impugned orders having been passed without jurisdiction, are not sustainable. 11. We accordingly accept the revision petition, set aside the orders of the foras below and dismiss the complaint. | 
