This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 21.06.2012 passed by the Goa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panaji (in short, he State Commission in Appeal No. 36/2011 Goa Housing Board Vs. Shri Dilip Nayak by which while allowing appeal set aside order of the District Forum and dismissed the complaint. 2. Brief facts of the case are that opposite party/respondent advertised Plots No. 7 to 12 for sale by public auction to be held on 15.6.2004. The auction was conducted in sequence. Plots No. 7 and 12 were corner plots. Petitioner-complaint purchased Plot No. 9 for Rs.2600/- per sq. mt. and Plot No. 12 admeasuring 336 sq. mts. was sold to one Venancio Furtado @ Rs.2150/- per sq. mt. The petitioner did not participate in the auction of Plot No. 12, as he had already purchased Plot No. 9 of 255 sq. mt. It was further alleged that later on area of Plot No. 9 was reduced to 285.65 sq. mts. Had area been reduced at the time of auction, he would have put his bid for corner Plot No. 12 which was sold at lesser rate and in this way by reducing area of Plot No. 12, the respondent has committed illegality malafidely, hence, complainant claimed refund of difference of price in Plots No. 12 and 9 along with interest. Opposite party-respondent filed reply and submitted that area was reduced on the request of officials of SGPDA to have a smooth curve on the corner plot to avoid accidents and prayed for dismissal of complaint. District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed the complaint and directed opposite party to refund difference of rate in two Plots No. 9 and 12 along with interest. On appeal by the respondent, order of District Forum was set aside and complaint was dismissed. 3. Heard the petitioner in person and perused record. 4. It is an admitted fact that there is no deficiency of service pertaining to Plot No. 9 which was purchased by petitioner in auction. He has alleged deficiency in respect of reducing area of Plot No.12 after auction, but admittedly he has not participated in the auction of Plot No.12 and in such circumstances, he is not a consumer in respect of Plot No.12 and learned State Commission has rightly held that as the complainant was not a consumer in respect of Plot No. 12, the complaint was not maintainable. Merely by reducing the area of plot after auction under compelling circumstances, no deficiency can be attributed qua the petitioner and only purchaser of Plot No.12 could have complained against the opposite party. The complaint is totally misconceived and learned State Commission has not committed any error in allowing appeal and setting aside the order of the District Forum and in dismissing complaint with cost. 5. Consequently, the revision petition filed by the petitioner against respondent is dismissed with no order as to costs.