J.M. Malik, Presiding Member—Shri Kishore Ramchandra Bhide, petitioner/complainant is the Member of Green Acres Horticultural Development Cooperative Society Limited, opposite party No. 2/respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 was established for development of Horticulture and promoting overall growth of agricultural activities. The society had purchased agricultural land at Dolkham Tal, Shahpur Distt. Thane and plot No. 7 at survey No. 88, was allotted to the complainant. The society was to construct the farm house belonging to the complainant. Since the stay was granted against the society by the authority, therefore, the society could not construct the said farm house.

2. The complainant has filed this case with the prayer that the amount paid by him in the sum of Rs.2,18,500/-, out of total consideration of Rs.3,30,950/- alongwith interest @12% per annum, be given to him. The District Forum dismissed the complaint. Being aggrieved by the order of District, Forum, an appeal was preferred before the State Commission which dismissed the same.

3. The District Forum dismissed the complaint on two counts. Firstly, the society was not in a position to construct the house due to stay order. Secondly, it was observed that considering the nature of the activities for which allied services of the society were hired, it is a commercial purpose being a horticulture business.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued with vehemence that the above said farm house is being purchased for residential purpose, which would be used seasonally and to store fertilizers and transacting the cultivation of fruits and vegetables. It was admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has got a separate residential house.

5. We find it extremely difficult to countenance this contention. We have perused the complaint. The relevant paras of the complaint are reproduced as follows:

“The respondent No. 2 society is categorized as Agricultural society. The complainant states that respondnet No. 2 socieity has purchased huge land at Dolkham Tal. Shahpur Dist. Thane for achieving its object and in turn has proposed to develop it for horticultural, forestry and agricultural cultivation. A scheme accordingly was launched by the respondent No. 2 socieity to divide the land into several plots and allot it to its members upon certain terms and conditions. The complainant herein is member of the respondent No. 2 society and in accordance with its scheme entered into an agreement with the said society on 10-5-1989. In accordance with the said agreement. The Society has allotted a plot admeasuring one acre to the complainant herein upon certain terms and conditions which are set out in the agreement dated 10.5.1989. The complainant craves leave to refer to any rely upon the said agreement dated 10-5-1989.”

“The complainant is self-employed, a qualified Engineer.”

6. Although, the petitioner stated that he is a consumer, yet, he has not mentioned that he is purchasing this farm house for self-employment or for earning his livelihood. It is rather clear that this farm house is being purchased for earning profits. The petitioner is already employed.

7. The Supreme Court has discussed the term ‘consumer’ in the celebrated authority reported in Laxmi Engineering Works v. PSG Industrial Institute1 wherein it was held:

“The National Commission appears to have been taking a consistent view that where a person purchases goods “with a view to using such goods for carrying on any activity on a large scale for the purpose of earning profit”, he will not be a ‘consumer’, within the meaning of Section 2 (d) (i) of the Act. Broadly affirming the said view and more particularly, with a view to obviate any confusion – the expression “large scale” is not a very precise expression – Parliament stepped in and added the explanation to Section 2(d)(i) by Ordinance/ Amendment Act, 1993. The explanation excludes certain purposes from the purview of the expressio