We have heard Ms. Nirmal Gupta, proxy for Mr. P.K. Aggarwal. The respondent was served with the notice on earlier occasion. He had not appeared on previous date. Today also the respondent is absent. 2. The respondent was the original complainant before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi in complaint case no. 259/1995. His grievance was that in 1980-81 a scheme for development of plots in Rohini area was published by the appellant. He applied for an MIG plot (90 sq. mtr.) He also deposited Rs.5,000/- as registration amount. Though he awaited for a period of more than 15 years yet he could not get any plot under category of MIG. It was the case of the appellant that the allotment of plots was being made in phases spread over for period of 5 years and after preparation of the lots from which draws were made in favour of eligible applicants. The name of the complainant was considered for the allotment of plots during the course of various draws for the allotment held before 1989. However, it was his ill-luck that he could not get the allotment during the course of draws. Thereafter a category-wise list was prepared and the respondent (complainant) has been placed at serial no. 18398 for the allotment of 90 / 60 sq. mts plot under the category of MIG. He could not be accommodated in the next round. The contention of the appellant was that the respondent could not get any right because the contract was un-concluded and merely because the registration money was deposited by the respondent he could not be termed as onsumerqua the appellant. The appellant further alleged that if the respondent wanted to get the registration money back, it will be refunded to him as per the due procedure of the DDA. 3. Upon perusal of the impugned order, it is manifest that the State Commission was much influenced by the fact that for longer period, there was no allotment in favour of the respondent (complainant) in spite of his having registered himself way back in 1980-81. The State Commission appears to have lost sight of the fact that mere registration by a person in any scheme for allotment of plots or flats, as the case may be by itself would not make such person a consumer within the meaning of section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. A mere registered and prospective purchaser, without having any concluded contract with the DDA cannot maintain a complaint for any deficiency in service. We fail to see as to how the State Commission could reach to conclusion that the appellant was guilty of unfair trade practice. As a matter of fact, allotment of plots or flats by the DDA is not a trade as such. It is for the welfare of the needy persons that such schemes are undertaken in order to provide accommodation, shelter and the purpose is not of profit-making as such. Thirdly, the State Commission awarded interest @9% p.a. from the date of deposit till the order rendered by it. Though the complaint filed by the respondent was for the compensation of Rs.20 lakh. The compensation was sought for the mental agony suffered by the complainant (respondent) and his prayer was not for refund of the registration amount. The complainant never alleged that his registration should be cancelled but sought compensation due to the delay caused in making of the allotment. It is of common knowledge that draws are prepared as per the terms of the scheme and only those who get the allotment as per the draws are the beneficiaries. As a matter of fact, the complaint itself was not maintainable in view of the nature thereof. Needless to say that the impugned order is unsustainable in the eyes of law. 4. Taking over all view of the matter, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order. However, we make it clear that the respondent will be at liberty to seek refund of the registration amount from the appellant as may be permissible under the due procedure of DDA. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. No costs.