Complainant / Respondent had purchased a shop-cum-flat No.143, Sector-13, Urban Estate, Karnal in open auction on 23.05.1984 for a total consideration of Rs.2,43,000/-. Subsequently, the respondent received a letter dated 21.12.1998 from the petitioner demanding another sum of Rs.93,349/- for increase in the land area of SCF. The land area of the SCF was increased from 121 sq. meters to 173.5 sq. meters. Petitioner filed a complaint before the District Forum which was partly allowed. The District Forum directed the petitioner not to charge any amount by way of interest from the complaint on the price of the additional area of the plot in question before the date of notice, i.e. 21.12.1998. However, the petitioner was held entitled to receive a sum of Rs.33,200/- being the actual cost of the increased area from the respondent along with interest at the agreed rate from the date of notice dated 21.12.1998 till payment. Respondent being aggrieved filed an appeal before the State Commission which has been dismissed. Respondent had purchased the plot in open auction. Hon’ble Supreme Court in UT Chandigarh Administration & Anr. Vs. Amarjeet Singh & Ors., (2009) 4 SCC 660 has held that a person who has purchased a plot in an open auction is not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and, therefore, complaint by the such person is not maintainable. Para 14 of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:- “14.A “complaint” is maintainable before a Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, by a “complainant” (“consumer” or others specified) against a “trader” or “service” are defined in clauses (b), (c), (d) (q) and (o) of Section 2 of the Act. Therefore, a Consumer Forum will have jurisdiction only when: (i) the complainant is a “consumer” as defined in clause (d) or a person specified in clause (b) of Section 2 of the Act; (ii) the respondent is a “trader” as defined in clause (q) or a provider of “service” as defined in clause (o) of Section 2 of the Act; and (iii) the “complaint” relates to any of the matters specified in clause (c) of Section 2, for obtaining any relief provided by order under the Act. It therefore follows that where the complainant is not a “consumer” [or a person specified in clause (b) of Section 2], or where the respondent is not a “trader” or “service provider” or where the complaint does not relate to matters enumerates in clause (c) of Section 2 of the Act, the Consumer Forum will have no jurisdiction either to entertain any complaint or grant any relief under the Act.” (emphasis supplied) For the reasons stated above and the view taken by the Supreme Court of India in UT Chandigarh Administration’s case (supra), it is held that the complaint filed by the respondent was not maintainable. Accordingly, revision petition is allowed. Orders passed by the fora below are set aside and the complaint is ordered to be dismissed. However, the petitioner, if so advised, would be at liberty to seek relief from any other forum alongwith an application under Section 14 of the Indian Limitation Act for condoning the delay for the time spent before the consumer fora, keeping in mind the observations made by the Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works vs. PSG Industrial Institute – (1995) 3 SCC 583. No order as to costs. A copy of this order be sent to the counsel for the petitioner. | 
