NCDRC : no relationship of the consumer and service provider, iI the application for allotment was not considered,

5.       We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The State Commission in para-5 of the impugned order has observed that the only argument raised by the learned counsel for the HUDA is that since the application submitted by the respondent/complainant was beyond the date fixed for submitting the application, the application was not considered for allotment and the accompanying bank draft was not encashed. Despite of noting this fact the State Commission has failed to appreciate that if the application for allotment sent by the complainant was not considered, no relationship of the consumer and service provider came into being as such the Consumer Fora had no jurisdiction to intervene in the matter. Therefore, under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the impugned orders of the Fora below are without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside.

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

NEW DELHI

REVISION PETITION NO. 3166 OF 2016

(Against the Order dated 18/12/2015 in Appeal No. 725/2015 of the State Commission Haryana)

HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Versus
JASWANT SINGH

Dated : 17 Apr 2017