Mr. Justice D.R. Vithal Rao, President— In this complaint, the complainant-M/s. Gruhalakshmi Housing Co. (P) Ltd., under Section 17 r/w Sec. 12 of the Consumer Protection. Act, 1986, has sought compensation in a sum of Rs. 5,57,891.75 from the Opposite Party-M/s. Garden City Housing & Construction.

2. The complainant-a housing company, averred that it had entered into an agreement with the OP-another housing company for preparing a plan, develop and allot the plots to its members by the Opposite Party. The first agreement was on 15.6.1988. On 16.8.1989 another agreement was executed between them. Thereby the Opposite Party agreed to provide 120 sites in Sy. No. 70/1 of Srigandada Kaval, Yeshvanthpur Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. The sites measured 30’x 40’ and 40’ x 60’ respectively.

3. The complainant, further averred, that at the instance of the Opposite Party, the complainant paid a sum of Rs. 22,000 / to an Architect-by name Prayarana for preparing the scheme. The Opposite Party failed to prepare the said scheme. The OP after some time agreed to form and develop a housing scheme for the members of the complainant’s company in Sy. No. 16 of Sunkadakatte of Bangalore North Taiuk. The Opposite Party even there failed to provide a scheme. The complainant in the meanwhile had made payment of huge sum of Rs. 19,475/-, Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 70,000/- to the Opposite Party and a sum of Rs. 22,000/- to Prayarana Architect, at the instance of the Opposite Party.

4. The complainant, when the Opposite Party acted in breach of the agreement by not, providing housing scheme and by not allotting any plots, the complainant claimed the money paid by it and also compensation, in all the complainant claimed a sum of Rs. 557,891.75 with interest thereon from the Opposite Party.

5. The Opposite Party filed its version and averred that the money received from the complainant has already been paid back to the complainant. The Opposite Party further averred that the scheme could not be gone through due to various Government restrictions and so there was no negligence on their part in not carrying out the obligations under the agreements. The Opposite Party, on the basis of these averments, sought the complaint to be dismissed.

6. During enquiry, the parties filed their affidavits. The complainant got Exs. C-1 to C-18 marked in evidence. The Opposite Party got Exs. R-1 to R-19 marked in evidence.

7. We heard the learned Counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and the material placed on record.

8. The averments at para 2 of the complaint, read as under :

“2. The respondent-Company alongwith Sri. M. Gopal, presently representing as the Director of the respondent-Company. The respondent as well as the complainant are dealing in organising and development of housing schemes by forming layouts in and around Bangalore under the authority of the Government of Karnataka and rendering services to their members and also inter se for providing residential houses plots to their members.”

This would go to show that the complainant and the Opposite Party are the organisations dealing and in development of housing schemes for forming layout in and around Bangalore. This would clearly go to show that the dispute raised by the complainant is a dispute between the two business organisations.

9. Having regard to these facts, we are constrained to hold that the complainant cannot be classified as a ‘consumer’ under Section 2(1)(d) and the complaint cannot be classified as a ‘complaint’ under Section 2(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

10. The averments in the complaint go to show that it is in respect of failure on the part of the Opposite Party to carry out its obligations under various agreements entered into between the parties. Therefore, the matter is purely in the realm of ‘Breach of Contract’ and it would not constitute a ‘consumer dispute’ as envisaged by the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is for the complainant to pursue his or