JUSTICE J.M.MALIK 1. This complaint pertains to a family dispute. The most intricate questions involving succession and partition of a HUF property are involved. The partition suit is already pending before the Honle Delhi High Court. The key question which falls for consideration is, hether, the complainant, Mr.Vipin Garg, is a onsumer The short facts of the above detailed complaint are these. 2. The complainant is a member of Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) and resides in an immoveable residential property No.23, Abul Fazal Road, Bengali Market, New Delhi. The complainant is sharing the suit property with his mother, father, Sh.Brij Bhushan Garg, OP3 and his brother, Sh.Neeraj Garg and his family. 3. The main grievance of the complainant is in respect of OP2, Sh.Raj Bahadur Garg, who is his paternal uncle, brother of his father. The said suit property measures about 212.5 sq.yds. It was purchased by Late Sh. Ladli Prasad, the great grand-father of the complainant and his brother, Late Sh. Har Prasad, in the name of HUF. From time to time, the members of the HUF/ shareholders/ heirs of Late Sh. Ladli Prasad and Late Sh. Har Prasad took money in consideration of relinquishment of their rights in the above said suit property and other properties. The properties were divided by way of settlement. The complainant was never a party to the above said settlement. In 1956, at Karnal, some members divided the properties of HUF firm and left the suit property for Sh.Jagdish Chander Garg, the grand-father of the complainant. However, the HUF was not dissolved. 4. The complainant was born on 02.03.1972. Karta of HUF firm, Sh. Jagdish Chand Garg passed away, on 29.03.1978, intestate. OP2 abandoned his membership of the HUF Firm and left for Uttar Pradesh, where he was employed as Engineer in Irrigation Department of Uttar Pradesh. 5. On 20.11.2007, Union of India, through Land & Development Officer, Ministry of Urban Development, Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi, OP1, executed a Conveyance Deed in favour of OPs 2 & 3. In the Conveyance Deed, it was stated that in the year, 1940, Lease Deed was executed in favour of Late Har Prasad, Late Sh. Ladli Prasad, Bankers by mutation in the names of Mr.Raj Bhushan Garg and Mr.Brij Bahadur Garg, OP 2 & 3, respectively, was jointly recorded. It is also explained that nobody had objected to that. 6. It is alleged that Union of India through Land and Development office- OP1 did not ask for objections from LRs and other persons interested in the property. No notice was served upon the petitioner. OP2, after the death of his mother, put his lock on the room which was earlier occupied by her. The mutation was got done secretly by OP2 in the year 2007. He did not have good relations even with his wife. Thereafter, OP-2 started demanding one-half of the whole property. OP2 also filed suit for partition of the suit property against his elder brother, OP3. The partition suit is still pending before the Delhi High Court. OP3 is an old person of 76 years and is unable to participate in settlement, mediation with OP2, in the premises of Delhi High Court. The complainant, being Member of HUF, is entitled to have his share. All the maintenance of the building is done by OP3. 7. The complainant came to know about the wrong mutation and Conveyance Deed, on 07.01.2013 when OP3 asked him to represent him in mediation with OP2. The cause of action for correction of Conveyance Deed, arose on 16.05.2013. The above said complaint was filed before this Commission, on 01.07.2013, with the following prayer :- he OP 1 be directed to rectify the Conveyance Deed dated 20.11.2007 and/or correct the defect by executing another supplementary conveyance deed in favour of HUF Firm or Legal Heirs/ Members, jointly. Any other relief in interest of justice as this Commission deem proper in facts and circumstances of the case 8. We have heard the counsel for the Complainant. He contended that the present complaint was filed within time, because it came to the knowledge of the complainant that wrong entry was made in the Conveyance Deed, in the year 2013. It is further surprising to note that the complainant has not mentioned as to when did OP2 file the Partition Suit before the Honle High Court. However, we refrain from deciding this controversy at this stage. 9. Counsel for the complainant submitted that he is a onsumer We clap no value to his feeble submission. Nowhere in the complaint he has stated that he is qualified to be a onsumer in accordance with the law laid down in Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. That para is conspicuously missing. It is not understood, who is the ervice provider His name does not appear in the record. He is trying to be a new entrant. He is making bricks without straw. So far consumer case is concerned, he has got no ocus-standi This is a case of the nature of a civil dispute and this Commission cannot arrogate itself to the powers with which it is not armed with. This case involves complicated questions of law and facts, which cannot be decided by this Commission. It requires the oral and documentary evidence to be recorded. The complainant is neither a onsumer nor this Commission has the jurisdiction to try this case. The consumer complaint is, therefore, dismissed, with no order as to costs. 10. This complaint is found to be malafide, vexatious and frivolous. The litigants have to adhere to the provisions of CP Act, 1986, in respect of matters not falling within its purview. This tendency has to be curtailed. In view of this frivolous complaint, we impose costs in the sum of Rs.10,000/- on the complaint, under Section 26 of the Consumer Act, to be deposited with Consumer Welfare Fund, by drawing a demand draft in favour of AO-Ministry of Consumer Affairs New Delhi, within 90 days from the receipt of this order, otherwise, it will carry interest @ 9% p.a., till realization. The learned Registrar of this Commission is directed to see compliance of this order and report.