ORDER
B.K. Taimni, Member
1. Petitioner was the opposite party before the District Forum along with respondent No. 2 where the respondent No. 1/complainant had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service against both of them.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant became a member of the 2nd respondent-Society for allotment of a residential plot. The Society had acquired certain lands for this purpose which was acquired by the State Government but later on exempted certain areas from the acquisition. As a result of this latter action, the respondent Society was handed over 306 plots. Out of this, one plot, Plot No. 1368-D was allotted by the respondent No. 2 Society to the complainant but the plot was found to be non-existent, hence not available. It is in these circumstances that the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner and the 2nd respondent. The District Forum after hearing the parties allowed the complaint against the 2nd respondent and directed it to deliver the possession of the said plot within two months. On an appeal being filed by the 2nd respondent, the State Commission held the petitioner deficient in service and directed it to deliver possession of an alternative plot in lieu of Plot No. 1368-D. Aggrieved by this order of the State Commission, the petitioner has filed this revision petition before us.
3. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the complainant is not a consumer qua him, they have never dealt with them. As per exemption granted by the State Government, they made the plots available to the respondent No. 2 Society. It was for him to allot plots to the members including the complainant. For any deficiency on the part of the 2nd respondent, the petitioner cannot be faulted. State Commission has gone wrong on this count, hence the order passed by it is bad and needs to be set aside. On behalf of the respondent-1/complainant it was argued that the order of the State Commission is correct and this well reasoned order needs no interference. The petition needs to be dismissed with costs.
4. We have heard the argument’s and perused the material on record. Undisputed facts of the case are that the complainant was a member of the 2nd respondent Society, had paid the dues hence was entitled for allotment of land for construction of house. The land belonging to Society was acquired and later on exempted as a result of which 306 plots were given over to the Society for allotment to its members. As per material on record Plot No. 1368-D was one of such plots, carved and numbered by the petitioner Trust. This plot was allotted to the complainant, but on reaching the spot found no such plot. It cannot be disputed that layout plan giving details of the plots, roads etc. are prepared and handed over to the Society by this petitioner. To hand over a non-existing plot to the Society was itself a deficiency. It is for making up this deficiency that the petitioner has been directed to allot another plot in lieu of Plot No. 1368-D which exists on the ground (emphasis supplied) which can be allotted to the complainant and delivery of its possession can be done. No case has been made out by the petitioner that Plot No. 1368-D in fact did exist on the ground. Deficiency in such circumstances is writ large. It is not disputed that out of the several plots allotted to the 2nd respondent, Plot No. 1368-D was one of them. On the point of the complainant not being a consumer, we are in full agreement with the reasoning of the State Commission where it holds the complainant to be a consumer. No jurisdictional error or point of law has been raised before us to interfere with the well-reasoned order of the State Commission. This revision petition is dismissed with costs of Rs. 5,000/- payable by the petitioner to the complainant.