Mr. Justice S.S. Chadha, Member — This Appeal is directed against the order dated 20th December, 1994 passed by the Madhya Pradesh State Commission at Bhopal, dismissing the complaint.

2. It is unnecessary to notice the facts in detail. The complainant applied for registration as small-scale industry and was granted registration vide certificate of registration dated 16.8.91. He submitted an application for allotment of a plot as stipulated under the Madhya Pradesh Industries (Allotment of Sheds, Plots & Lands) Rules, 1974. Letter of Intent dated 21.8.91 was issued to the complainant for allotment of a plot of 240 sq. mts. The complainant was however ultimately allotted a plot of 180 sq. mts. on 25.5.92 after he gave his consent. The complainant submitted the draft lease deed as per prescribed proforma of the opposite party and prayed for its execution. The complainant was, however, informed on 10.9.92 that no land was available with the opposite party for allotment to the complainant. The complainant then filed a writ petition before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur, being M.P. No. 3759/1993. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh passed on 15.5.94 the order, the operative part of which reads as under:

"The respondents have in their return, pointed out: that one plot No. 30-A shown in red in the map is available and this can be allotted to the petitioner. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has no objection for this allotment of plot, but this plot is not accessible by load and the respondents shall also be directed to give facility of water as well as electricity. The learned Counsel for the respondents submits that all the facilities which are being given to other plot holders, shall be given to the petitioner. In this view of the matter, the respondents are directed to allot the petitioner Plot No. 30-A shown in red in the map, filed by the respondents and they shall also give him same facility as are being given to other persons to whom the plots are allotted. The petitioner shall be given possession of the said plot within one month from today".

The possession of the plot was not handed over to the complainant by the opposite party as directed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the operative part of the order extracted above.

3. The complainant had filed an earlier complaint before the State Commission in which it was alleged that as the service with regard to allotment of industrial plot in industrial estate established by the opposite parties is service within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 the complainant was entitled to seek the relief of possession of plot of land and also compensation for the deficiency in service. The opposite party produced the said order of the High Court before the State Commission. During the hearing, it was pointed out by the opposite party that the complainant in the writ petition had sought relief for the possession of land which is the subject-matter of the complaint before the State Commission and the High Court had already passed an order in the petition filed by the complainant. Thereafter, the Counsel for the complainant stated before the State Commission that this complaint was being withdrawn and that the complainant would file another complaint claiming compensation from the opposite party. The complaint was dismissed by the State Commission as withdrawn by the order dated 23.11.94.

4. The complainant then filed fresh complaint out of which the order under appeal has arisen claiming from the opposite party a sum of Rs. 15.75 lakhs by way of compensation for the delay in. allotment of plot of land to the complainant. The State Commission in the impugned order held that the complainant while giving consent for allotment of another plot of land had given up whatever rights in the complaint, he was claiming in respect of plot of land which was alleged to have been earlier allotted to the complainant, that if there is non-compliance with the orde