ORDER

Subhash Chandra, Member—This revision petition under section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the ‘Act’) assails order dated 16.03.2015 of the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh (in short, ‘State Commission’) dismissing First Appeal No. 561 of 2011.

2. In brief, the facts of the case are that the Respondent had allotted plot no. 307 in Ajnala Road Extension Scheme, Amritsar to Smt Kartar Kaur, wife of Karnail Singh on 27.02.1992 as a local displaced person. Shri Rajwant Singh, son of the allottee intimated the respondent vide letter dated 22.04.1996 that Smt Kartar Kaur had expired on 19.11.1987. At the request of Rajwant Singh, the respondent agreed to allot the plot to him as the legal heir. However, he submitted the requisite papers in the name of his wife, Sukhwant Kaur. The respondent directed her to take possession on 12.09.1998 which was done on 22.09.1998 at which time it was seen that the plot size was excess by 197 sq yds. The respondent agreed to regularize the same which was done on 18.07.2002 on deposit of Rs.93,552.58. Subsequently, on 25.11.2008 a sum of Rs.5,33,5740/- was directed to be paid as Government Rules required payment of market price. As this amount was not paid and the excess area was not surrendered, the Conveyance Deed could not be executed. During this period, the plot was purchased by one Smt. Narinder Kaur through a special power of attorney. She approached the District Forum by way of complaint no. 513-10. The District Forum vide order dated 01.02.2011 ordered the present revisionist to execute the sale deed in favour of the respondent herein subject to payment of transfer fee. The present revisionist appealed before the State Commission pleading that as Sukhwant Kaur was not the legal owner of the plot and there had not been any transfer of the plot in her name, she could not be considered a ‘consumer’ of the respondent as there was no privity of contract between them. The State Commission, however, upheld the order of the District Forum and directed that subject to the filing of an affidavit and indemnity bond by Sukhwant Kaur and completion of various formalities within 45 days, the sale deed be executed in favour of the present respondent by the revisionist. This order is impugned before us.

3. We have heard the submissions of both the learned counsels for the parties and perused the records carefully.

4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner argued that the respondent is not a consumer qua the revisionist and that there is no privity of contract between them. It is his case that for this reason the complaint is not maintainable. It is also argued that as plot no. E 307 has not been transferred through a conveyance deed to the legal heir of the original allottee, the respondent cannot claim any rights as one who has stepped into the shoes of the original allottee. Reliance is placed on this Commission’s orders in HUDA Vs. Darshan Singh III (2010) CPJ 189 (NC) and HUDA Vs. Krishan Lal I (2010) CPJ 99 (NC) where it was held that till such time an allotment is made in the name of an allottee, he/she would not become a consumer. The petitioner also relies upon this Commission’s orders in PUDA Vs. Krishan Pal Chander I (2010) CPJ 99 (NC) where it was held that an applicant was only a prospective investor and not a consumer till the allotment of a flat was done. According to the petitioner, the central issue is whether the respondent is a consumer qua the petitioner and, therefore, whether the orders of the lower fora are justiciable. It is his contention that both the District Forum and the State Commission have erred in taking the view that the respondent was a consumer of the revisionist. It is argued that such a view is unsustainable since there was no allotment made by the petitioner in favour of the respondent.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the respondent stepped in to the shoes of the original allott