Today is fixed for order. Complainant is present and files hazira. Accordingly, the record is taken up for order. The instant petition of complaint U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 filed by the Complainant reveals that the said Complainant lives as a licensee in a government quarter, G-83, Supply Line, Port Blair within P.S Aberdeen Bazar, Tehsil Port Blair. The said quarter was in a dilapidated condition requiring extensive renovation. Accordingly, he made several complaints with the Authority concerned but to no effect. His allegation is that though the other nearby quarters were getting renovation but the one he is leaving has been left unattended as a result of which he suffered the problems of the dust allergy and sustained damage of food grains and other eatables due to seepage/leakage of rain waters therein. So he prayed for compensation from the Opposite Parties who were the engineers of the A.P.W.D. During hearing on the point of maintainability of the instant case Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that the instant case comes very well within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act in as-much as the Complainant pays licence fees for the quarter to the Government. It is also admitted that the Complainant has already retired from his service. But however, still occupying the quarter. The definition of “consumer” under section 2 (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 reads as under- “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;] Again, the Act gives the meaning of “service” in section 2 (o) as service of any description which is made available to potential [users and includes, but not limited to, the provision of] facilities in connection with banking, financing, insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, board or lodging or both, [housing construction], entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news or other information, but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service; So, from the above definition of consumer, it is clear, that a consumer for the purpose of the Consumer Protection Act either has to buy any goods for a consideration, or to hire, or avails of any service for a consideration. But it excludes the person who buys goods, or hires, or avails of service for any commercial purpose. Here, in the case under consideration what we find, the Complainant being an occupier of the government quarter, during his service tenure or subsequently thereafter (he being still in possession of the quarter) cannot come within the purview of section 2(d) (i) as it does not involve buying of any goods. Again, he cannot claim to have hired or availed of any service within the meaning of section 2 (d) (ii) by virtue of his occupation of such government quarter on payment of licence fees. This is because providing any quarter facility to its employees by the government or in other words allowing the public servants to occupy government quarters at a highly concessional rate does not amount to providing services of any kind within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act. Allotment of quarter for the benefit of its employees by government at a concessional rate is under a scheme or certain rules of the government which are statutory in character and the licence fees paid therefor cannot at all be termed as consideration price. Therefore, we are of opinion that the instant case which is filed by the Complainant praying for some compensation from the Opposite Parties is not at all maintainable and hence is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the complaint made U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act is dismissed being not maintainable. No order as to costs. Member Member President | 
