JUDGMENT - Justice G.G. LONEY, President:—In this complaint, it is alleged by the complainant that he had booked a flat bearing No. 6-B in a scheme quoted by the Opposite parties 1 and 2. The complainant further alleged that he paid Rs. 30,000/-. He further alleged that he paid Rs. 13,000/- to opposite party No. 3. It is the allegation of the complainant that he had very good relations with opposite party No. 3 and therefore, through him he had booked the flat in question. It also alleged that complainant paid Rs. 13,000/- on 15-1-1990 as demanded by opposite party No. 3. The complainant alleged that he was to obtain loan for the purchase of the flat but the opposite parties did not oblige him by giving him all the necessary documents to facilitate him to obtain the loan. According to complainant, since he could not get the loan for want of the necessary documents from the opposite party, he has been put to loss. He also alleged that Rs. 43,000/- which he paid for the aforesaid flat are still lying with the opposite parties. The complainant therefore, submitted that he is ready and willing to purchase the aforesaid flat and to perform all the necessary acts for getting sale deed executed in his favour. In the alternative, the complainant prayed for return of Rs. 43,000/- + Rs. 60,000/- + Rs. 21,285 as compensation. The claim of the complainant was opposed by the opposite parties. The opposite parties No. 1 2 claimed in their joint written version that one Shri S.G. Deshpande, who is working in the Irrigation Department had booked a flat in the name of the complainant. It is also submitted that the said S.G. Deshpande, is the brother of complainant and also had deposited the amount of Rs. 10,000/- and 20,000/- on 10-7-1989 and 16-7-1989 in cash. It is also submitted that the receipts were handed over to the said S.G. Deshpande, the complainant's brother, and therefore, a letter was issued in favour of the complainant dated 1-8-1989 showing that the flat has been allotted to him and requested to make the payment of further instalment. It is the case of the opposite party No. 1 2 that complainant never paid any amount to them towards the flat in question and never entered into an agreement with them. It is the case of the opposite party No. 1 2 that complainant never paid any amount to them towards the flat in question and never entered into an agreement with them. It is also submitted that the said S.G. Deshpande had booked other flats at Nagpur in the name of his 2 brothers and mother. It is however the case of the opposite parties 1 and 2 that since Shri S.G. Deshpande could not pay the balance amount towards the flats which he had booked, his allotment of flat No. 6-B in question was cancelled and the amount paid for the flat in question was adjusted towards other flats booked by Shri S.G. Deshpande. It is therefore, submitted by the opposite party 1 2 that they had no privity of contract with the complainant in relation to the flat in question and therefore, the complaint be dismissed. It is also stated that complainant had filed the complaint before the District Forum, Nagpur and the same was dismissed in default of complainant. 2. In his written version, the opposite party No. 3 has stated that he has no concern in this transaction and therefore, he has been unnecessarily made party in this complaint. 3. We have heard complainant in person. Opposite party 1 2 by Shri Badge, Advocate and opposite party No. 3 was heard by Mrs. Padole, Advocate. 4. We have carefully gone through the allegations made by the complainant and the written versions filed by the opposite parties. We have also exhaustively heard the arguments of all the parties. We find substance in the defence of the opposite parties No. 1 2 that there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the opposite parties 1 2. There is no agreement between the complainant and the opposite parties 1 2 showing that complainant had hired any services of the opposite parties No. 1 2 for the purpose of construction of a flat for the complainant. The entire basis of the complainant's claim is a letter dated August, 1989 issued by opposite party No. 1 in favour of complainant in which it is stated that complainant had booked the flat No. 6-B and had paid Rs. 30,000/- and demanded Rs. 20,000/- by the month end. The entire basis of the complainant's claim is a letter dated August, 1989 issued by opposite party No. 1 in favour of complainant in which it is stated that complainant had booked the flat No. 6-B and had paid Rs. 30,000/- and demanded Rs. 20,000/- by the month end. According to the opposite parties, the complainant never paid the balance amount and further explained in their written version that the flat was in fact booked by complainant's brother Shri S.G. Deshpande and amount was also paid by him and the amount paid was adjusted towards other flats booked by Shri S.G. Deshpande, in the name of his 2 brothers and mother. Now these allegations made by the opposite parties 1 and 2 in their version has not been contravened by the complainant by filing a counter affidavit. The fact that there was no privity of contract between the complainant and opposite parties 1 2 are supported by the letters issued by complainant to the opposite parties. In his letter dated 1-11-1990, the complainant has stated that the opposite party did not execute an agreement in his favour. The complainant has also alleged in para 10 of his complaint that inspite of the registered notice, the opposite parties do not prepare the agreement and not supplied the required documents. These circumstances clearly support the defence of the opposite parties that no agreement was executed in favour of the complainant. Thus, it is fully established that there is no Privity of contract between the complainants and the opposite parties 1 2 for the hiring of the services by the complainant. Consequently, the complainant cannot be said to be a consumer within the meaning of section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. Under such circumstances, the complaint filed by the complainant alleging the deficiency in the service of the opposite parties is not maintainable. At the most the complainant can claim back the amount if he has really paid to the opposite parties 1 2, if he tenders satisfactory evidence. Under these circumstances, we are unable to treat this complaint as a consumer dispute and hence it is liable to be dismissed. So far as the grievance of the complaint as regards the claim of refund of money is concerned he is at liberty to move the appropriate Court if so advised. Hence we pass the following order. ORDER The complaint is dismissed. So far as the grievance of the complaint as regards the claim of refund of money is concerned he is at liberty to move the appropriate Court if so advised. Hence we pass the following order. ORDER The complaint is dismissed. *****