The legal definition of 'Consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act and the time limitation for approaching the Consumer Forum were central to the court's decision.

ORDER :

R.S. Madan, President

The above mentioned both the appeals have arisen out of the order dated 16.5.2008 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panchkula passed in Execution Application No. 16/2008 to execute the order dated 30.11.2007 passed in Complaint No. 134 of 2007. Therefore, we proceed to decide both these appeals vide this common order.

2. The brief facts of the present case are that the respondent No. 2 Shri K.C. Bhatia had filed Complaint No. 134 of 2007 attributing deficiency in service on the part of the HUDA authorities for non-allotment of a residential plot under N.R.I. quota for which he applied. The complaint of complainant Shri K.C. Bhatia, was contested by the HUDA authorities. The District Consumer Forum, Panchkula accepted the complaint vide order dated 30.11.2007 by granting following relief:

“6. After taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hold the OPs guilty of deficient services. Hence, the complaint is hereby accepted.

7. Now turning towards the relief clause, it may be noticed that the complainant has asked for issuance of formal letter of allotment of the entitled residential plot in favour of the complainant apart from compensation of Rs. 2,00,000 for harassment and Rs. 11,000 as costs. After due consideration, we direct the OPs to issue allotment letter in favour of the complainant as per his entitlement after getting requisite approval from the competent authority within one month from the date of communication of this order. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.”

3. The HUDA authorities filed appeal No. 1026 of 2008 before this Commission. However, during this period in the execution application filed by the complainant to execute the order dated 30.11.2007, the following order of conviction was passed by the District Consumer Forum, Panchkula on 16.5.2008:

“Heard both the sides. After taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hold Shri T.C. Gupta, Chief Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula and Shri Mahavir Kaushik, Estate Officer, HUDA , Panchkula guilty for non-compliance of order dated 3.2.2006 and by virtue of the powers conferred by Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, we sentence both these accused persons to two years imprisonment each and a fine of Rs. 10,000 each is also imposed upon them. Non-bailable warrants by name be issued against both these two accused-opposite parties for their arrest for serving the sentence in jail and for recovery of fine for 17.6.2008. A copy of the sentence order be supplied to both the accused and complainant side free of costs under proper proof of delivery. It is ordered accordingly.”

4. Challenging the order of conviction dated 16.5.2008, a C.W.P. No. 9171 of 2008 was filed before the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh because the post of President in the State Commission, Haryana was vacant in those days. In the above said writ petition, following relief was granted by the Hon’ble High Court vide order dated 18.5.2009:

“Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and considering the fact that the impugned order dated 16.5.2008 is an off-shot of the original order parate appeal against the impugned order dated 16.5.2008, if so required of advised, within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is received. It is however, directed that till the appeal which may be filed against the impugned order or the one which has already been preferred against the original order is decided on merits, operation of the impugned order dated 16.5.2008 shall remain stayed. In case the petitioner’s appeal[s] is/are dismissed by the State Commission, it is further directed that the operation of the impugned order dated 16.5.2008 shall continue to remain stayed for another period of two months to enable the petitioner to seek further regress before an appropriate Forum. The peti