ORDER :---This is a complaint in which M/s. Nenmal Indrakumar Co., alleged the deficiency in the service of opposite party viz. Bombay Agricultural Produce Market Committee, New Bombay (hereinafter referred to as "A.P.M.C."). The consumer dispute arose on the premises that the complainant alleged that APMC, New Bombay entered the field of construction activities by constructing shop-cum-godowns in phase-II, Market-I at New Bombay. The A.P.M.C. issued advertisement to sale their shop-cum-godowns at New Bombay to the traders engaged in marketing of agricultural produce. In response to the advertisement, the complainant applied for one shop-cum-godown and paid Rs. 25,000/- towards booking amount on 24-2-1989. Rs. 25,000/- were paid by the complainant by demand draft which have been acknowledged by issuing receipt. It is specified is the said receipt that the aforesaid amount has been received by A.P.M.C. towards shop-cum-godown phase-II, market-I. Thereafter, A.P.M.C. addressed a letter dated 11-7-1989 to complainant in which it is clearly stated its approval about the booking of the shop-cum-godown. In that letter A.P.M.C. requested the complainant to deposit additional amount of Rs. 50,000/- against the said shop-cum-godown before 15-7-1989 so as to consider his claim on priority basis. The complainant accordingly paid Rs. 50,000/- to A.P.M.C. by demand draft for which a receipt has been issued on 29-7-1989 by A.P.M.C. It is also made clear in the said notice that the Additional amount has been accepted with reference to letter dated 11-7-1989. The aforesaid facts are not in dispute. The complainant alleged in this complaint that the offer made by A.P.M.C., New Bombay was accepted by him and therefore, made the payment of Rs. 50,000/-. It is alleged by the complainant that A.P.M.C. has subsequently prepared some norms for the allotment of shop-cum-godowns to favour some persons and are denying the allotment of shop-cum-godown to complainant on priority basis. According to complainant, A.P.M.C. has indulged in the "unfair trade practice" and is acting in negligence manner and has thus committed deficiency in its promised service. The complainant therefore, prayed in this complaint to restrain A.P.M.C. to proceed with allotment of shop-cum-godowns on the basis of subsequently framed rules and further prayed for the allotment of a shop-cum-godown to him on priority basis in view of the commitment of A.P.M.C. dated 11-7-1989. The complainant also claimed compensation for inconvenience suffered by him. The complainant therefore, prayed in this complaint to restrain A.P.M.C. to proceed with allotment of shop-cum-godowns on the basis of subsequently framed rules and further prayed for the allotment of a shop-cum-godown to him on priority basis in view of the commitment of A.P.M.C. dated 11-7-1989. The complainant also claimed compensation for inconvenience suffered by him. In response to the notice under section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the opposite party filed its written version dated 3-3-1994. 2. Inter alia it is contended by A.P.M.C. that market committee is a state or instrumentality of State and also a local authority and therefore it is not bound to allot the additional shop-cum-godown on arbitrary basis as is sought by the complainant. It is also submitted that the writ petitions were filed by some claimants claiming the allotment of additional shop-cum-godowns before the High Court, Bombay, and in seven writ petitions the Division Bench of Bombay High Court directed A.P.M.C. to allot the shop-cum-godowns to the petitioners in phase-II, market-II against the deposit of arrears of market share within four weeks. It is also contended that the said petitions are pending. But they relate to phase-II, market-II. It is further contended that A.P.M.C. has laid down the norms in December, 1993 for the illegibility of the allottees, and these norms are worked out on the basis of the directions from the High Court. These are two main contentions on the basis of which, according to A.P.M.C. complaint is liable to be dismissed. There are certain more admitted facts which are necessary to be taken into account. The total shops were 228 in phase-II, market-I and the construction has started in the year 1991 whereas the booking was made by complainant in February, 1989 and the amount of Rs. 50,000/- was paid towards consideration of complainant claim on priority basis in July, 89. It is also an admitted fact that A.P.M.C. accepted the deposit from various traders till the year, 1993. However, it is important to note that the additional amount of Rs. 50,000/- for getting the shop on priority basis were paid only by 72 traders including the complainant. It is also an admitted fact that A.P.M.C. accepted the deposit from various traders till the year, 1993. However, it is important to note that the additional amount of Rs. 50,000/- for getting the shop on priority basis were paid only by 72 traders including the complainant. It is again important to note that on 4-3-1994 Shri Naik, the learned Advocate appearing for A.P.M.C. has stated that out of 228 shop-cum-godowns, 200 shop-cum-godowns have already been allotted to different traders in the month of February, 1994 and now 28 shop-cum-godowns are still available with A.P.M.C. for allotment. It was therefore directed by this commission to A.P.M.C. to keep one tenament available till the decision of this complaint. 3. We have heard Shri Mokashi, the learned Advocate for complainant and Shri Naik, the learned Advocate for opposite party. 4. The following two important issues arise for our consideration in this consumer dispute : i) Whether the complainant is a consumer within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. ii) Whether the complainant had hired the service of A.P.M.C. for consideration and whether there is deficiency in the service of A.P.M.C. New Bombay? 5. As regards the first point we find that the complainant being a consumer within the meaning of section 2(d)(ii) it has to be answered in the affirmative. The Supreme Court of India in the case of (Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta)1, has held on 5-11-1993 in Civil Appeal No. 6237/1990 (1994(3) Bom.C.R. (Cons.)5, that the definitions such as "consumer", "service", "trader", "unfair trade practice" indicates that the legislature has attempted to widen the reach of the Act. Each of these definitions are in two parts one explanatory and other expandatory. The explanatory or the main part itself, uses, expressions of wide amplitude indicating clearly its wide sweep than its ambit is widened to such things which otherwise would have been its natural import". It is also held that the provisions have to be construed in favour of consumers to achieve the object of legislation. It is also held that the deficiency in the service covers all bodies private or Statutory. It is specifically held that the housing activity is included within the meaning of "service" under the Consumer Protection Act. It is also held that the provisions have to be construed in favour of consumers to achieve the object of legislation. It is also held that the deficiency in the service covers all bodies private or Statutory. It is specifically held that the housing activity is included within the meaning of "service" under the Consumer Protection Act. The said decision further laid down the proposition of law that the liability to pay for deficiency in the service applies in case of Government or Statutory Body. Thus, admittedly the complainant having hired the service of A.P.M.C. for consideration to construct shop-cum-godown and considering the admitted and proved facts, we have now to decide whether the service of A.P.M.C. hired by the complainant has been deficient in any manners. 6. The A.P.M.C. is trying to dispute the complainants claim on the ground that they have laid down the norms about the illegibility for the allotment of shop-cum-godown in December, 1993. But prior to the norms A.P.M.C. have agreed in writing to the complainant to allot the shop-cum-godown on priority basis and accepted additional amount of Rs. 50,000 for consideration of his claim on priority on 29-7-1989. In our view the norms having been formulated subsequently to the issue of letter dated 29-7-1989 to complainant, the norms so formulated cannot bind the complainant. The norms cannot bind the earlier transactions wherein A.P.M.C. agreed to make allotment on priority basis and for that purpose accepted extra consideration of Rs. 50,000/- from complainant. In any case, A.P.M.C. is bound by contractual and legal obligation on the basis of its letter dated 11-7-1989 to allot a shop-cum-godown to complainant on priority basis. It is not the case of A.P.M.C. that the complainant approached it for allotment on priority basis after the payment of Rs. 50,000/- and the monies had been accordingly accepted on 29-7-1989. Thus, the norms of eligibility laid down in the month of December, 1993 are not applicable for the allotment of shop-cum-godown to the complainant and it is governed by the stipulation and promise held out by A.P.M.C. in its letter dated 11-7-1989. Thus, A.P.M.C., New Bombay having failed in its contractual obligation on the basis of aforesaid letter dated 11-7-1989 has been proved to be deficient in its service. The word "deficiency" has been defined under section 2(g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Thus, A.P.M.C., New Bombay having failed in its contractual obligation on the basis of aforesaid letter dated 11-7-1989 has been proved to be deficient in its service. The word "deficiency" has been defined under section 2(g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The word "deficiency" includes inadequacy or fault in the manner of performance which has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of contract or otherwise in relation to any service. Since it is an admtted fact that A.P.M.C. in this case had undertaken to render the service of allotment of shop-cum-godown to complainant on priority basis on payment of Rs. 50,000/- any failure on the part of A.P.M.C. to allot shop-cum-godown to complainant is not only the shortcomings or inadequacy in the performance of service but is obviously "unfair trade practice" within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act. The defination of "unfair trade practice" within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act means trade practice which for the purpose of promoting the sale or use or supply of any goods or for the provisions of any service makes a false or misleading representation concerning the need for or the usefulness of any goods or service and thereby causes loss or injury to the consumer of services. In the instant case, A.P.M.C. made a false and misleading representation to complainant in its letter dated 11-7-1989 and thus committed unfair trade practice. 7. The complainant having thus proved that A.P.M.C. has been deficient in its promised service, we have now to consider whether the complainant is entitled to allotment and possession of a shop-cum-godown. It is crystal clear that the complainant is entitled to allotment of shop-cum-godown by A.P.M.C. in phase-II, market-I at New Bombay. It is also an admitted fact that 28 shop-cum?godowns are still available for allotment and admittedly one shop-cum-godown is available for allotment to complainant in view of the undertaking given by A.P.M.C. In view of our discussion in the preceding paragraphs we find that the complainant is a consumer of A.P.M.C., New Bombay. The service has been proved to be deficient. The complainant has been apparently put to injury and loss. He has paid Rs. 75,000/- in the year 1989 and the amount has been lying with opposite party without any benefit to complainant. The shop-cum-godowns are fully constructed and ready for possession. The service has been proved to be deficient. The complainant has been apparently put to injury and loss. He has paid Rs. 75,000/- in the year 1989 and the amount has been lying with opposite party without any benefit to complainant. The shop-cum-godowns are fully constructed and ready for possession. In view of the availability of shop-cum-godown for allotment to the complainant, the A.P.M.C. can very easily place complainant in possession of shop-cum-godown. 8. Another question whch has to be decided by us is whether the complainant has been put to loss or injury as a result of negligence in the service of A.P.M.C. It is very obvious that in as much as having promised to allot a shop-cum-godown on priority basis after the payment of Rs. 50,000/- and even after shop-cum-godowns are fully constructed and available, the complainant has been denied the benefit by A.P.M.C. of shop-cum-godown since the year 1989 i.e. after the considerable delay. It is found from the written version of A.P.M.C. that the market value of smallest shop-cum-godown of 650.00 sq.ft. is more than Rs. 12 lacs. The contention was raised that this commission has no jurisdiction to try the present consumer dispute as it is not within the pecuniary jurisdiction. Apart from ignorance shown by A.P.M.C. as regards the pecuniary jurisdiction of this commission which is upto Rs. 20 lacs, the price indicated for a shop-cum-godown is Rs. 12 lacs and precisely the complainant has been kept away from the possession of his property valued at Rs. 12 lacs since long. Thus, the complainant has been put to considerable loss due to delay on account of negligence in the service of A.P.M.C. In our considered view, apart from allotment of shop-cum-godown the complainant is also entitled to claim compensation as a result of negligence in the service of A.P.M.C. The negligence is apparent from the fact that despite the earlier representation of consideration of allotment on priority basis A.P.M.C. indulged in "unfair trade practice" by postponing the allotment under the pretext of laying down the norms of eligibility to favour its traders on wrong and manipulated consideration. 9. Lastly, we have also considered the contention raised by Shri Naik, the learned Advocate for opposite party that the matter is sub-judice in the High Court. In our case, the issue before the High Court is not identical. 9. Lastly, we have also considered the contention raised by Shri Naik, the learned Advocate for opposite party that the matter is sub-judice in the High Court. In our case, the issue before the High Court is not identical. No matter is pending before the High Court as regards the allotment of shop-cum-godown to complainant on priority basis. The Consumer Protection Act is aimed at providing cheap and expenditious remedy to the aggrieved consumers. But under section 3 of the said Act the provisions are in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus, the jurisdiction of the High Court has been left intact. Moreover, the complainant is not a party before the High Court. Thus, there is no legal impediment to decide this dispute as contended by Shri Naik, Advocate. Hence, we pass the following order : Order 10. Complaint is allowed. The opposite party viz. Agricultural Produce Market Committee, New Bombay is directed to remove the deficiency in its service by alloting a shop-cum-godown to complainant out of 28 shop-cum-godowns available with it for allotment. The A.P.M.C., New Bombay is also directed to pay to complainant reasonable amount of compensation by way of interest @ 18% p.m. over the deposit of Rs. 25,000/- Rs. 50,000 from the date of deposit till the actual possession is delivered to complainant, failing which the complainant be paid Rs. 12 lacs towards the value of shop-cum-godown as compensation for the loss and make the payment within 30 days from the receipt of this order. The complainant be also awarded Rs. 2000/- as costs. Complaint allowed. *****