Site Applicant Not a Consumer: NCDRC Upholds Dismissal of Complaint.
06 December 2024
Civil Revision >> Civil & Consumer Law | Consumer Law >> Civil & Consumer Law
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has dismissed a revision petition filed by an applicant seeking allotment of a site under the "State Government Employees" quota, affirming the decisions of the lower fora that the applicant did not qualify as a "consumer" under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The petitioner, who had applied multiple times for a site since 1991, challenged his transfer from the government employees' quota to the general category in 2005, arguing that it was arbitrary and resulted in him being denied a site in the Vasanthanagar layout.
Chronology of the Case:
District Forum: Dismissed the complaint, holding that the applicant was not a "consumer" as he had not been allotted a site.
State Commission: Dismissed the appeal, upholding the District Forum's decision.
National Commission: Dismissed the revision petition, affirming the lower fora's orders.
Key Issues and Arguments:
The central issue revolved around whether an applicant for site allotment, who had not yet been allotted a site, could be considered a "consumer" under the Consumer Protection Act. The petitioner argued that the authorities' actions constituted deficiency in service and restrictive trade practices. The respondents countered that the transfer to the general category was based on a policy decision and that the complaint was barred by limitation.
NCDRC's Reasoning:
The NCDRC's decision was primarily based on the principle that mere filing of an application for site allotment does not confer consumer status. The Commission relied on the judgment in Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority and Another vs. Krishan Pal Chander, which held that until a site is allotted, an applicant cannot be considered a "consumer."
The NCDRC also emphasized the limited scope of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, stating that it should only intervene in cases where the State Commission has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law, failed to exercise vested jurisdiction, or acted illegally or with material irregularity.
The Commission cited Supreme Court judgments in Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Sunil Kumar Maity vs. SBI & Anr., and Rajiv Shukla Vs. Gold Rush Sales and Services Ltd., which reinforce the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction and the importance of upholding concurrent findings of fact by the lower fora.
Outcome:
The NCDRC dismissed the petitioner's revision petition, upholding the concurrent findings of the District Forum and the State Commission. The Commission concluded that the petitioner was not a "consumer" under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as he had not been allotted a site.