Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member

          This is one of the oldest complaint and from the record it appears that the same is yet to be admitted.  Complainant remaining absent for a long time though the notices were sent to him to participate in the proceeding in the Lok Adalat and/or the Commission. 

          We heard Learned Counsel Mr.Prakash Kadam appearing for the opponent.

          It may be pertinent to note that though in substance complaint relates to a grievance for not considering the case of the complainant about waiving condition of domicile for 15 years by the CIDCO.  CIDCO is not made a party but Chairman or the Managing Director and the Marketing Manager, who are distinct person under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 are made parties who are officials of the CIDCO and not the CIDCO itself.

          Apart from that whether to relax condition of domicile or not is a policy decision and admittedly, complainant did not satisfy the condition stipulated.  He wanted to get relaxed said condition.  Refusal or no reply to such request on behalf of the CIDCO will not raise any consumer dispute particularly since there is total absence of element of hiring of services.  Under these circumstances, we do not find this as a consumer dispute and consequently holding accordingly pass the following order :-

                   -: ORDER :-

1.     Complaint is not admitted and accordingly stands dismissed.

2.     No order as to costs.

3.     Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.

Pronounced

Dated 2^nd May 2011.