Order
1. The appellant approached the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, claiming compensation on the ground that the respondent had failed to render services to the appellant. The National Commission found that the appellant was tenant of the respondents and that as per the terms of the lease agreement dated 15-12-1967, there was no provision in the said agreement wherein the respondent agreed to render any sort of services to the appellant.
2. In the grounds of appeal filed in this Court, it was contended that the appellant had hired the services of the respondent landlord in respect of cleaning, repairing and maintenance of the subject building for consideration. But we do not find any such clause in the terms of the lease. The National Commission was therefore right in coming to the conclusion that the appellant was not a consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
3. On the facts of this case, therefore, it is clear that the appellant is not a consumer. The appeal is therefore dismissed. No costs.