Service rendered free of charge or under a contract of personal service is not covered by the term "service" as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Dr. (Mrs.) Avtar Pennathur, Member— This is a complaint dated 25.9.89 filed by ‘B’ Type Ground Floor Flats Owners of Neelamber Apartments Pitam Pura, Delhi. The construction of this Group Housing Complex for retired/serving personnel had been undertaken under Self Financing Scheme by the Air Force Naval Housing Board in 1983. The grievance of the complainants is that all the allottees were charged equal tentative cost of the flats irrespective of the fact whether the flat was in the ground floor or at the top floor. Scooter garrages at an additional cost of Rs. 5,000/- were provided to the upper Ground Flat owners.

2. It is alleged that the plinth area for 3 scooter garrages each of 26 sq. ft., an area of 78 sq ft. has been taken away from the ground floor flat plinth area and that this must be adequately compensated. Besides, the cost escalation from Rs. 87,000/- to Rs. 1,16,940/- per flat must be corrected to the cost of level of April, 1987.

3. The respondent in its reply has stated that the Air Force Naval Housing Board, referred to as the ‘Board’, is an Organization set up jointly by the Air Head Quarters and Naval Head Quarters with a view to promote suitable housing schemes for retired as well as serving personnel as a welfare measure at ‘No Profit No Loss basis’. These facilities are also extended by the Board to the widows of the deceased service personnel. The Board is a society registered under the Societies’ Registration Act, 1860. It functions on All India basis and has projects for building houses at various places in India like Noida, New Delhi, Bangalore, Calcutta, Bombay, Hyderabad, Chandigarh, Faridabad, Cochin and Madras.

4. It is further contended that the affairs of the Board are managed by a Board of Management which comprises of high-ranking Serving officers of the Indian Navy and the Indian Air Force. The case of the respondent is that after procuring the land from government agencies at concessional rates, group housing tenements are built thereon on Self Financing Basis and made available to service personnel. Steel and cement is procured at concessional rates and assistance is provided to the allottees to secure loans. After the scheme is prepared, including the general outlay plan of a particular group housing project indicating covered and uncovered areas of the tenement of each floor and a tentative cost, it is made known to the prospective members of the particular group housing scheme, and that it is made clear to the members of such housing schemes that the cost indicated is only tentative and the final cost will be determined after the project is completed.

5. The respondents further allege that the Neelamber Apartments at Pitam Pura, New Delhi is a Self Financing Housing Scheme consisting “of 164 flats for officers (type ‘A’) and 100 flats for Airmen/Sailors (Type ‘B’) The type ‘B’ flats are constructed in a four storey construction consisting of 25 blocks. There are thus 25 ground floor flats of type ‘B’ at Neelamber Apartments.

6. Further that out of 100 members for those flats, 44 members gave ground floor as first choice and 31 members gave ground floor as their 2nd choice. The members had full knowledge that the scooter garrages were not available at ground floor. They also knew that the area available at ground floor was also slightly less than the top floors. The flats were allotted through an open and impartial draw. 21 flats were allotted to those who had given ground floor as their first choice and four to those who had given ground floor as their 2nd choice.

7. Apart from the contentions summarised above, the respondents strongly urged that since they do not charge any consideration and work on ‘No Loss No Profit basis’ for the benefit of the Air force and Naval Personnel this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

8. Arguments were heard at length only on the question of jurisdiction. The learned Counsel for the complainant pleaded that the Board is a separate entity