Page 1

1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 331    OF 2007

GANESHLAL                           Appellant(s)

                    :VERSUS:

SHYAM                                           Respondent(s)

O R D E R

Heard Mr. Kishor Lambat, learned counsel in  

support  of  this  appeal.  None  appears  for  the  

respondent though served.

2. The  appellant  herein  had  agreed  to  sell  a  

plot  of  land  to  the  respondent  by  virtue  of  an  

agreement entered into with him on 2nd August, 1999.  

Inasmuch as the appellant failed to hand over the  

possession  of  the  concerned  plot  of  land,  the  

respondent filed a complaint, bearing No.62 of 2000,  

before  the  District  Consumer  Redressal  Forum  at  

Wardha. The appellant had raised the contention that  

the Consumer Forum had no jurisdiction to try the

Page 2

2

matter and a claim for specific performance of the  

agreement would lie only before the Civil Court and  

not  before  the  District  Consumer  Redressal  Forum.  

The  District  Forum,  however,  in  its  order  dated  

10.10.2000 took the view that no civil dispute was  

involved, and that it was a case of deficiency in  

rendering  service  to  the  respondent.  The  District  

Forum  therefore  passed  an  order  directing  the  

appellant to deliver the possession of the concerned  

plot of land.    

3. The appellant carried this matter in appeal  

to  the  State  Commission  under  Section  15  of  the  

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the Act, for short).  

The State Commission rejected the said appeal by its  

order  dated  23.10.2000.  Being  aggrieved  by  the  

judgment and order passed by the State Commission, a  

revision  was  filed  before  the  National  Consumer  

Disputes  Redressal  Commission.  The  National  

Commission  took  the  same  view  and  dismissed  the  

revision  by  the  impugned  order  dated  14.9.2001.  

Being  aggrieved  by  this  judgment  and  order  the  

present appeal has been filed. Though the respondent  

has been served, he has not turned up to defend the

Page 3

3

cause.  

4. Mr. Lambat, learned counsel for the appellant  

submitted that the dispute between the parties was  

concerning the sale of a plot of land. A complaint  

as  defined  under  Section  2(1)(c)  of  the  Act  was  

lodged to look into the allegations of  

(i)  unfair  trade  practice  or  a  

restrictive trade practice adopted by any trader  

or service provider;  

(ii) the goods bought by him or agreed  

to be bought by him suffer from one or more  

defects;  

(iii) the services hired or availed of  

or agreed to be hired or availed of by  him  

suffer from deficiency in any respect;  

(iv) a trader or the service provider,  

as the case may be, has charged for the goods or  

for the services mentioned in the complaint, a  

price in excess of the price;  

(v) goods which are sold are hazardous  

to life and safety when used;  

(vi)  services  which  are  hazardous  or  

likely to be hazardous to life and safety of the

Page 4

4

public  when  used,  are  being  offered  by  the  

service provider which such person could have  

known with due diligence to be injurious to life  

and safety.   

5. Learned counsel submits that a sale of plot  

of land simpliciter cannot lead to a complaint to  

the  District  Consumer  Forum  or  to  the  State  or  

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The  

jurisdiction  of  the  District  Consumer  Forum  under  

Section 11 of the Act is to entertain a complaint  

and  as  seen  above,  complaint  is  defined  in  a  

particular manner, and primarily it is with respect  

to the deficiency in making available the goods and  

services.  The  term  “deficiency”  is  also  defined  

under  Section  2(1)(g)  of  the  Act  which  reads  as  

follows:

“deficiency” means any fault, imperfection,  

shortcoming  or  inadequacy  in  the  quality,  

nature  and  manner  of  performance  which  is  

required to be maintained by or under any law  

for  the  time  being  in  force  or  has  been  

undertaken to be performed by a person in  

pursuance  of  a  contract  or  otherwise  in  

relation to any service.”

Page 5

5

6. It  is  submitted  that  failure  to  hand  over  

possession of the plot of land simpliciter cannot come  

within the jurisdiction of the District Consumer Forum,  

State Commission or National Commission. We quite see  

merit in this submission of Mr. Lambat, particularly  

having seen the definition of 'deficiency' as quoted  

above.  We may, however, note that when it comes to  

“housing construction”, the same has been specifically  

covered  under  the  definition  of  'service'  by  an  

amendment inserted by Act 50 of 1993 with effect from  

18th June, 1993.  That being the position, as far as the  

housing construction by sale  of flats by builders or  

societies is concerned, that would be on a different  

footing.  On the other hand, where a sale of plot of  

land  simpliciter  is  concerned,  and  if  there  is  any  

complaint, the same would not be covered under the said  

Act.  

7. Having noted this submission of Mr. Lambat, we  

must, however, record that he has fairly pointed out  

that subsequent to the order of the State Commission,  

the  appellant  has  executed  the  sale  deed,  and  the  

concerned plot of land has been handed over to the

Page 6

6

respondent.   That  being  so,  although  we  accept  the  

legal submission made on behalf of the appellant, he  

cannot be granted any relief, namely to dismiss the  

complaint  which  was  filed  in  the  District  Consumer  

Forum which has now been entertained and acted upon by  

the conduct of the appellant himself.  The appeal is  

therefore disposed of with these observations.    

.........................J (H.L. GOKHALE)

.........................J  (J. CHELAMESWAR)

New Delhi; September 26, 2013.