The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the term 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act and the determination of whether the complainant qualified as a consumer in the given context.

The revision arises upon the dismissal of the revision preferred by the complainant aggrieved over the dismissal of the appeal by the State Forum as against the award passed by the District Forum.

2. By construing himself as a consumer, the complainant

prayed for a compensation of Rs.99,998/-. By its order dated 12.3.1997, the District Consumer Forum, Madurai accepted the grievance of the complainant and ordered for a compensation of Rs.10,000/- only. Aggrieved by that, the complainant preferred an appeal before the State Consumer Redressal Forum, which was dismissed on 19.11.1997 holding that the complainant/revision petitioner was not at all a consumer. As against that, the complainant preferred a revision before the State Consumer Redressal Forum and that was also rejected without even numbering. Hence the revision petition.

3. The revision petitioner is a licensed builder accustomed of drawing plans on behalf of the actual builder and getting them approved from the Municipal Corporation – the first respondent herein. As per the by-laws relating to the Madurai Municipal Corporation Licensing of Builders and Surveyors under Section 433(12) of the Madurai City Municipal Corporation Act, the licensed builder, who has signed in the plan, shall be deemed to have been employed by the owner or the other persons as the case may be for the execution of those works included in the plan till their completion in all respects. Since the revision petitioner was paying the licence fee from time to time, he was construed as a licensed builder.

4. His grievance is that on very many occasions, including when he prepared a set of plans for the construction of a dwelling house for one Dr.Radhakrishnan, and for Thiru R.Ragothaman,B.E., and also for Tmt.C.S. Prarthana Devi, the first respondent – Corporation and its officials have wantonly and under the guise of acquisition proceedings and scheme plan, etc., refused approval whenever the revision petitioner applied for the same. On the contrary, the same approval was granted subsequently when the actual person wanted to raise the building.

5. In the case of Dr.S.Radhakrishnan, the petitioner had sent the plan on 21.3.1985. The approval of the plan was rejected stating that the site was under acquisition by the State Housing Board. In spite of the subsequent letter by the revision petitioner on 19.4.1985, the same was not accepted. But, the intended builder Dr.Radhakrishnan was able to get the approval of the same plan on 17.10.1985. Similarly, when the revision petitioner sent the plan for the building for Mr.R.Ragothaman, it was returned on 11.5.1988 on false grounds. When an appeal was preferred before the Special Officer, it was said that the Corporation authorities themselves passed orders of rejection by usurping the powers of the Special Officer. Again in the case of Tmt.Prarthana Devi – the wife of the revision petitioner, when a set of plans with detailed letter dated 9.5.1991 were sent, the same were neither approved nor rejected within the statutory period of 30 days and it was on 26.6.1991, an interim reply was sent to the complainant's wife that the matter is waiting for the opinion of the Standing Counsel of the Corporation.

6. Thus, aggrieved over the wilful and wanton inaction and alleged alien attitude of the officials of the Madurai City Municipal Corporation, the complaint was preferred before the District Consumer Redressal Forum, which, after due enquiry, passed an award of Rs.10,000/-. Now, the State Forum dismissed the complaint by dismissing the appeal saying that the complainant was not at all a consumer. The un-numbered revision was also rejected by the State Forum.

7. As per the definition clause under Section 2-D of the Consumer Protection Act, the meaning of 'consumer' is as follows :

"Consumer means any person who

(i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment