Thiru Justice M.S. Janarthanam, President—The order dated 24.3.1997 in SR. No. 114/97 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Coimbatore, dismissing the complaint in limini ‘holding that the complainant cannot at all be construed as a consumer qua the opposite party, is challenged in this action.

2. The short facts necessary for appreciating the crux of the issue arising for consideration in this action may be related.

3. The complainant entered into a sale transaction with the opposite party, an estate dealer of plot No. 57 located in a specified place for an agreed amount. The opposite party, if appears, demanded amount in excess of the agreed amount and the complainant it appears, paid the excess amount as demanded by the opposite party. The complainant would further state that despite paying the excess amount the opposite party did not execute the sale deed in respect of the site No. 57 but he has executed a sale deed in respect of Site No. 69. This act of the opposite party, he would say, is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. For such deficiency, he instituted a complaint before the Forum below for certain reliefs as prayed for i