B.K. Taimni, Member—Appellants were the complainants before the State Commission, where they had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.

2. Undisputed facts of the case are that the appellants, who are the owners of certain piece of land, entered into a ‘Development Agreement’ with the respondent on certain terms and conditions as incorporated in the said ‘Development Agreement’. Certain discrepancies were found with the flats delivered to the appellants, hence a complaint was filed before the State Commission, who after hearing the parties dismissed the complaint as they did not find any discrepancies/objections filed by the complainant. Aggrieved by this order this appeal has been filed before us.

3. We heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties at some length on the point whether the complainant could be said to be a ‘consumer’ within the meaning of word ‘consumer’ as defined under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It was the case of the Ld. Counsel for the appellant that under Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, this is an additional remedy available to the appellant/complainant. We are afraid we do n