JUDGMENT - B.S. YADAV, Member :---This is an appeal against the order dated 3rd March, 1993 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Tamil Nadu at Madras in O.P. No. 39/93. By the impugned order the State Commission dismissed the complaint filed by the present appellant Shri P.R. Menon against the respondent-M/s. P.A. Construction. In this order the parties will be referred as arrayed in the complaint. In the complaint the complainant had alleged that he had purchased a flat No. B-23 at 869, Poonamallee High Ropad, Madras constructed by the opposite party by agreement dated 19.12.86. The complainant had purchased the said flat with the specific understanding that he would be allotted car parking space in the ground floor of the said building. Car parking space was very essential for him since his line of work involved lot of commuting from place to place. The opposite party vide letter dated 4th December, 1991 agreed to provide car parking space at the rate of Rs. 400/- per sq. ft. The complainant agreed to buy the same and sent his Regional Manager on 20-12-91 to meet the opposite party. However, the opposite party did not give the letter of allotment regarding car parking space and on the other hand sent a letter stating that garage space could be allotted only at the rate of Rs. 500/- per sq. ft. The complainant sent a notice through a Lawyer to the opposite party demanding car parking space at the initial agreed rate. The opposite party sent a reply refusing to provide car parking space at the contracted rate of Rs. 400/- per sq. ft. Thereupon the complainant filed a complaint for directing the opposite party to provide the car parking space and garage at the rate of Rs. 400/- per sq. ft. and for compensation in the sum of Rs. 3.00 lakhs. 2. 400/- per sq. ft. Thereupon the complainant filed a complaint for directing the opposite party to provide the car parking space and garage at the rate of Rs. 400/- per sq. ft. and for compensation in the sum of Rs. 3.00 lakhs. 2. At the admission stage of the complaint the State Commission held that it is a case regarding an agreement for sale of immovable property coming under section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act and the rights and liabilities of the parties are governed by section 55 of the said Act and hence the remedy of the complainant was to file a suit for specific performance in a Court of competent jurisdiction and the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 have no application in respect of the sale of immovable property. 3. As noticed above the State Commission dismissed the complaint. Feeling aggrieved against that the complainant has filed this appeal before this Commission. 4. Before we proceed further we may mention here that the appeal has been filed after a delay of 12 days. The complainant has filed application for condonation of delay. Considering the facts mentioned in the application we are of the opinion that the complainant has made out sufficient grounds for condonation of the delay. We accordingly condone the delay. 5 After hearing the Counsel appearing for the parties we are of the opinion that the State Commission was not right in dismissing the complaint on the ground that the case relates to agreement of sale for immovable property coming within the purview of the Transfer of Property Act and not under the Consumer Protection Act. It has been the consistent view of this Commission that where statutory bodies like Housing and Development Boards or private Builders are engaged in serving the public in the matter of providing house/plot by acquisition of land, development of sites, construction of houses thereon and allotment of plots/houses to the public, they are clearly engaged in rendering service for consideration to the public and those who are allotted plots/houses are clearly 'consumers' falling under the definition given in section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act. This view of this Commission has been upheld by the Supreme Court vide judgment dated November 5, 1993 passed in (Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta)1, Civil Appeal No. 6237 of 1991 In the present case the complainant had purchased a flat in the building constructed by the opposite party and therefore, he is clearly a 'consumer' as defined in the said Act. Though the grievance of the complainant relates to the purchase of car parking space and garage but we have to judge the case in larger perspective. For the beneficial enjoyment of the flat the complainant wanted a car parking space and he has clearly stated that the flat was purchased by him with the specific understanding that he would be allotted one car parking space on the ground floor of the said building. Thus the opposite party offered the car parking space to the complainant as part of the service already rendered by him while providing flat to the complainant. Therefore, the purchase of the car parking space cannot be taken as a separate contract for purchase of some immovable property. Hence for the purchase of car parking space the complainant will be deemed to be a consumer of service qua the opposite party. 6. In the light of the above discussions, we accept the present appeal, set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the State Commission for fresh disposal of the complaint on merits. There will be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.