Mrs. A.S. Vijayakar, Member — This is a First Appeal against the order of the State Commission, Rajasthan dated 19.7.1991 in complaint No. 66/90.

2. In the complaint it was prayed that a direction be issued against Opposite Parties/Respondents to pay damages & expenses, compensating financial loss, and to approve the plan submitted by the Complainant/Appellant.

(i) The Appellant submitted a Building Construction Plan prepared by a technical person to the Municipal Council, Bhilwara in the year 197475 under the provisions of Section 170 and Building Bye-laws framed by the Municipal Council, Bhilwara under the Rajasthan Municipal Act, 1959 for construction of Building on his Bapi Patta Plot of land in Bhilwara.

(ii) The Appellant also submitted to the Municipal Council, Bhilwara to deposit necessary fee rent etc. under Section 18 of its Bye-laws which was consented by the defendants Nos. 1 and 2.

(iii) As above, the Respondents agreed to render the service and entertained the technical plan for approval.

(iv) But, the Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have not returned the said technical plan up till now duly approved by it and also prevented the Appellant in writing that technical plan is under technical scrutiny and you will not commence any sort of construction before approval of the same.

That the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 failed to return the approved plan and prevented the Appellant to start construction work.

3. In short, the Complainant/Appellant has sought relief on various grounds, amounting to lakhs of rupees, i.e., Rs. 6,23,544/- with interest till date of payment, and also a direction to be given to the Respondents to approve the submitted plans.

4. The State Commission in its order has made the following observations :

(i) That the complaint as filed is barred by law of limitation.

(ii) That no complaint lay under the Consumer Protection Act against Opposite Parties Nos. 1 & 2 for the Complaint cannot be said to be a consumer who had hired the services for consideration of Opposite Parties Nos. 1 & 2.

(iii) That the Complainant has pursued his remedy before the Civil Court in regard to the same subject-matter claiming more or less the identical claims and, therefore, the Redressal Forums, i.e., State Commission cannot entertain the complaint.

(iv) That the reliefs claimed by the Complainant which have been adverted hereinabove cannot be granted by a Redressal Forum under Section 14(1) of the Act.

5. The State Commission, after considered discussion on each point, came to the conclusion, that the preliminary objections raised by the Opposite Parties are to be accepted, and that it is not necessary to examine the merits of the complaint.

6. The State Commission dismissed the complaint as not maintainable under the Act.

7. At the National Commission level too there was a delay of 24 days in filing the appeal, but this delay was condoned. Arguments were heard, and the Appellant was given one weeks’ time to file written submissions in supplementation of the oral arguments advanced.

8. We have perused the record, written submission and have come to the conclusion that the State Commission was right in dismissing the complaint as it is not a consumer dispute. Thus we confirm the State Commission’s order and dismiss the appeal. The appellant will pay Rs. 3,000/- as costs to the Respondents.

Appeal dismissed.