Complainant purchased commercial shop-cum-flat bearing No.45 & 46 in Sector-7, Faridabad from the respondent in an open auction. The complainant/petitioner filed the complaint before the District Forum with the allegations that respondent had assured him -2- that they would provide a congenial atmosphere and would provide all the basic amenities in sector-7, Faridabad but no such facility was provided by the respondent who failed to develop the area. Though in the site plan the respondent had shown parking space in front of commercial buildings No. 45 & 46 in Sector 17, Faridabad, but the respondent had constructed a public lavatory instead of parking there. Complainant also alleged several other malpractices on the part of the respondent. District Forum allowed the complaint and declared the resumption order of the respondent as null, void and invalid. Aggrieved against the order passed by the District Forum, respondent filed the appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission after condoning the delay, allowed the appeal relying upon the judgment of Supreme Court in U.T. Chandigarh Administration & Anr. Vs. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. (2009) 4 SCC 660´ wherein the Supreme Court has held that the purchaser of plot in an Auction would not be a ‘Consumer’ within the meaning of -3- Section 2 (1) (d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986; that a complaint filed by the purchaser in an open auction would not be maintainable. I agree with the view taken by the State Commission. The Supreme Court in para 21 of the aforesaid case has held as under: 21 With reference to a public auction of existing sites (as contrasted from sites to be ‘formed), the purchaser/lessee is not a consumer, the owner is not a ‘trader’ or ‘service provider’ and the grievance does not relate to any matter in regard which a compliant can be filed. Therefore, any grievance by the purchaser/lessee will not give rise to a complaint or consumer dispute and the fora under the Act will not have jurisdiction to entertain or decide any complaint by the auction purchaser/lessee against the owner holding the auction of sites. In view of this, the complaint filed by the petitioner would not be maintainable. Dismissed. However, this will not debar the petitioner from seeking redressal of its grievance by filing a Suit or taking recourse to any other remedy. Petitioner is put at liberty to move an application under Section 5 r/w Section 14 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963 for exemption of period spent before the consumer fora in view of
-4- observations of the Supreme Court in the case of “Laxmi Engineering Works vs. P. S. G. Industrial Institute 1995 (3) SCC 583”. | 
