Mr. Justice S.S. Dewan, President — The complainant before the District Forum has filed this appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short ‘the Act’) against the order dated 18.9.1991 passed by the District Forum, Ludhiana, in Complaint Case No. 4 of 1991 by which his complaint has been dismissed on the ground that he is not a ‘consumer’ under the Act.

2. The facts leading to this appeal lie in a narrow compass. The Improvement Trust, Ludhiana, issued a brochure inviting applications for the registration of residential plots at Ludhiana under the scheme known as ‘Randhir Singh Nagar’ and in the year 1978, the complainant applied for a 200 square yards plot in the said scheme and along with his application deposited Rs. 1,000/- with the Improvement Trust. After waiting for an inordinately long time, and apparently being unsuccessful in the draw of lots, the complainant again applied for a plot under a new scheme of the Improvement Trust known as ‘Raj Guru Nagar’ but he was unsuccessful in getting the plot by draw of lots. Getting no response from the Improvement Trust, the complainant ultimately knocked at the doors of the District Forum, Ludhiana, seeking allotment of the plot from the Opposite Party.

3. Notices having been issued to the Opposite Party, it filed a reply resisting the complaint on a preliminary objection and also on merits. The preliminary objection taken was that the Improvement Trust is a statutory body and hence it is not amenable to the jurisdiction of the Forum. Another facet of the same objection was that the complainant is not a ‘consumer’ under the Act. The District Forum upheld the preliminary objection raised by the opposite Party and dismissed the complaint. Hence the appeal.

4. The complainant has strenuously urged that the District Forum has misconstrued the dictum laid down by the National Commission in case U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Garima Shukla, I (1991) CPJ 1 (NC), and has gravely erred while holding that he is not a ‘Consumer’ under the Act. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the opposite party-respondent has reiterated the arguments before us that the Improvement Trust is a statutory body and hence not amenable to the jurisdiction of the Forum and the complainant is not a ‘consumer’ under the Act. We regret our inability to accept this contention of the learned Counsel The definition of the word ‘Consumer’ as given in the Act under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) is as follows:-

“(d)”Consumer” means any person who,-

(i) xx xx xx xx xx

(ii) hires any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other that the person who hires the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person.”

From the above definition it is evident that if any person hires services for a consideration partly paid and partly promised, he becomes a consumer.

The word ‘service’ has been defined in Section

2(1)(o) of the Act, which reads as follows:-

“(o) “Service” means service of any description which is made available to potential users and includes the provision of facilities in connection with banking, financing, insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, board or lodging or both, entertainment, amusement or the purveying a news or other information, but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service.”

The definition of the word ‘service’ is not exhaustive but illustrative. Any kind of service rendered or to be rendered by a person to another, may amount to service. In the instant case, the opposite party respondent has mentioned in the brochure that the purchasers would be provided with all the facilities and the complainant, in