J.M. Malik, Presiding Member—The whole controversy pivots around the question, “Whether the complainant is a ‘consumer’, under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986”.

2. The instant complainant is filed by Sh. Anil Dutt, the complainant.

The facts germane to the present case are these. M/s Business Park Town Planners Ltd. (BPTP), the opposite party, in this case, on 26.02.2006, gave an advertisement inviting applications for purchase of Plots, Flats, Villas and Apartments at Parkland, Faridabad. The complainant indicated his interest for the purchase of 10 plots, each admeasuring 300 sq.yards, for all his family members, so that they can live in one vicinity. It was agreed that the complainant would pay a sum of Rs.32,40,000/- per plot. The complainant accordingly paid Rs.7,50,000/- initially, for each plot, i.e. total payment of Rs.75,00,000/- for 10 plots. The opposite party accepted this amount on 05.05.2006, and issued Receipts, mentioning “Provisional Registration for a Unit in Future Project- 07”. The opposite party assured the complainant that delivery of possession of plots would be given at the earliest, and in no way, beyond thirty months.

3. As there was delay on the part