S. Saghir Ahmad, J.—Special leave granted.

Built up property No. C-33, Okhla Industrial Area Phase-I, New Delhi, 110020, constitutes the basis of dispute between the parties in the present appeal which is directed against the judgment and order dated May 18,1995, passed by the National Consumers Redressal Commission, New Delhi, whereby the complaint of the appellant under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was dismissed on the ground that the District Consumer Forum as also the State Commission had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the claim petition filed by the appellant to the effect that there was “deficiency of service” on the part of the respondent in not registering the document or issuing certified copy thereof inspite of full registration charges having been paid.

2. The document of which the registration was sought by the appellant is a “Will” dated 24th July, 1987 executed in his favour, as also in favour of his wife, Smt. Shanti Rani Goel, by one Shri P.N. Mishra which was presented for registration on 24th August, 1987 before the SubRegistrar-III, New Delhi who, instead of registering the document, impounded it as he was of the opinion that it was not a “Will” but a Deed of Conveyance which was not duly stamped. He, therefore, sent the document in original to the Collector of Stamps for action under Section 40 of the Stamps Act with the suggestion that the instrument was chargeable with 3% of the amount of consideration as Stamp Duty and 5% as Transfer Duty. The Collector of Stamps, New Delhi issued several notices to the appellant and ultimately in response to one such notice, the appellant appeared before the Collector and was apprised of the fact that the document presented by him for registration was not a “Will” but a conveyance deed and, therefore, he was required to furnish the Valuation Report, Receipts, General Power of Attorney etc. so that the document may be required to be properly stamped and registered.

3. While the matter was pending before the Collector, the appellant filed a complaint on 6th September, 1991 before the District Forum, Delhi, constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for various reliefs, including registration of the “Will” as also for the supply of certified copy thereof besides compensation for harassment since 1987. The District Forum, Delhi, by order dated 12th May, 1993, allowed the claim with the finding that the Collector of Stamps had not taken any decision as to the nature of document for about six years and was, therefore, liable to pay Rs. 700/- as compensation and Rs. 500/- as costs of litigation particularly as the appellant having paid the registration charges shall be treated to have hired the services of the SubRegistrar and the Collector of Stamps within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act.

4. Two separate appeals, one by the complainant (appellant) and the other by the respondent, were filed against the above order of the District Forum-I, Delhi, before the State Commission which by its order dated 11th April, 1994 not only upheld the decision of the District Forum but also enhanced the amount of compensation to Rs. 5,000/-.

5. The respondent, thereafter, filed a revision before the National Forum which, by the impugned judgment, allowed the revision with the finding that the District Forum as also the State Commission had no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the claim of the appellant particularly, as he was not a “consumer” within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

6. “Consumer” has been defined in Section 2(1)(d) of the Act as under : —

“2(1)(d)“consumer” means any person who —

(i) buys any goods 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 user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is n