The central legal point established in the judgment is that a member of a society established for the welfare of its members on a 'no profit no loss' basis cannot be considered a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act if the services rendered by the society to its members are free of charge.

R.G. Desai, President —The complainant is the retired Naval Commander and he is a member of the Airforce Naval Housing Board (for short the Board), a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act. The Board has been set up with a view to promote housing scheme for Airforce and Naval Personnel on all India basis as a welfare measure and it has its own memorandum of association and bye-laws. In Bangalore, the Board undertook to construct multi-storied apartments under the scheme called Honour-Banasawadi Scheme. The complainant was allotted Type-V House No. 190. He has taken possession of the same. He noticed five deficiencies as stated by him in the complaint, in the said apartment and they were not rectified inspite of his request by the Board, he has filed this complaint with a prayer for directing the Board to allot suitable alternative Type-V house to him and to grant such other reliefs including compensation, etc.

2. The complaint is resisted by the respondents by contending inter alia, that as the Board is doing welfare service to its members on no profit no loss basis, the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and that the deficiency alleged by the complainant in his complaint cannot be called as deficiency as defined under Section 2(g) of the Act.

3. We heard the Learned Counsel for the parties on the question of jurisdictsion.

4. The Learned Counsel for the complainant urged that as the charge for running the affairs of the Board are met out of the amounts contributed by the complainant and others, the said amount can be construed as consideration for hiring the services of the Board and so the complainant is a consumer.

5. The Learned Counsel for the respondents urged that as it is a self financing scheme taken as a welfare measure for the welfare of its members on ‘no profit & no loss’ basis, the complainant cannot be said to have hired the services of the Board for consideration and so he will not be a consumer, since the services rendered by the Board are free of charge. In support of his contention, he relied on the decision of Delhi State Commission in P.K. Kuriakose & Ors. v. Air Force Naval Housing Board, Delhi, decided on 27.3.1990.

6. From the Memorandum of Association of the Board, which has been produced by the Learned Counsel for the respondents, it is clear that the object for which the Board is established is to promote suitable housing scheme for naval personnel on all India basis purely as a welfare measure on ‘no profit no loss’ basis. The Learned Counsel for the respondents has produced the audit report of the Board for the year ending 31.3.1990. It does not show that the Board has made any profit. In view of the main object of the Board as stated above, it is not a profit making body. It is providing welfare service to its members without any loss or profit. Hence, the services rendered by the Board to its members are free of charge. If that is so, the service rendered by the Board will not be service for the purpose of Section 2(1)(o) of the Act. Hence, the complainant will not be a consumer and this complaint cannot be entertained by this Commission.

7. In the result, the complaint is dismissed. Under the circumstances of the case, we direct the parties to bear their own costs.

Complaint dismissed.