G. Balagangadharan Nair, President— The complainant is a Supervisor in the Madura Coats, Koratty. In 1982, he applied for allotment of a plot of land for construction of a house in the Chalakudy Housing Accommodation Scheme of the Kerala State Housing Board. The application was registered and in terms of the scheme he remitted Rs. 3,000/-. It was duly processed and on 16.4.1988 an agreement for the sale of a plot was entered into between the complainant and the Housing Board. The complainant was all this while remitting the instalments of the purchase money under the scheme of allotment. Ultimately on March, 30th 1990 the complainant was put in possession of a plot of land for construction of the house. The complainant now claims compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- from the Housing Board. He alleges that the prospectus issued by the Housing Board had offered to hand over the plots before the expiry of 3 years, at the latest, but as it happened it was only after seven years and four months that the plot was given to the complainant. Under the agreement of 16.4.1988 possession of the plot should have been given on that date itself; however it was done only one year and eleven months after. During this period, that is, from the date of the agreement to the date of obtaining possession he had paid to the Board land value with interest at 15% aggregating to Rs. 50,325/- (He has given details of the payment in the complaint). Inspite of his demands the Board had not cared to pay him interest on the amounts remitted by him. He was staying all this while in a rented building and he would have to bear additional cost for construction of the building owing to the escalation in the price of building materials. Had it not been for his involvement in this transaction with the Board, he could have purchased a plot of land and put up a building, years ago.

2. The opposite party’s version is briefly as follows : —

The Housing Scheme was formulated in the belief that the Board would be able to implement it within 3 years. However, owing to technical and administrative problems, it had taken a long time to finalise the scheme and allot plots of land. Keeping such a contingency in view appropriate provisions had been incorporated in the prospectus in regard to cancellation of registration in Clause ‘8’. If the scheme is not implemented within 3 years, the applicant can withdraw the application fee of Rs. 3,000/-. The complainant did not withdraw the registration obviously wanting to retain his priority. (The Board also refers to certain special provisions introduced in 1987 for the allotment of plots). To finalise the scheme on the new basis and to settle the extent, price, etc. of the plots would take sometime. The exact price payable by the applicants could be known only after such settlement. The Board had however decided to fargo the penal interest realised from the applicants and the complainant is entitled to get back Rs. 128.84 on this account. He is not entitled to any other relief. The Board has acted only according to the provisions of the Housing Board Act and the relevant scheme. It is true that there was some delay in the transfer of the plot; but this was not due to any negligence or laches on the part of the Board or its officers. They have all along acted bonafide. The claim made by the complainant is without any legal basis. The opposite party has also added that the complainant is not a consumer within the definition of the term in the Consumer Protection Act and the complaint is not maintainable.

3. The parties have led no oral evidence, but they have produced certain documents. These have been marked and admitted in evidence on consent.

4. The opposite party’s contention that the complainant is not a consumer and is therefore disentitled to claim the benefits of the Consumer Protection Act (the C.P. Act for short) can be easily dealt with. The National Commission has held in U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Garima Shukla I (1991)