HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN ,PRESIDENTHON'BLE MR. S.K. NAIK ,MEMBER
For the Appellant :
NEMO
For the Respondent :
NEMO
Dated : 25 Feb 2010
ORDER
Application for taking additional evidence is rejected. Complainant-respondent was allotted plot No. SSB-13 for Rs.6,04,000/- on 6.11.2000 being the highest bidder. Respondent deposited Rs.60,400/- i.e. 10% of the sale consideration with the petitioner at the time of bid. An amount of Rs.90,600/- i.e. 15% of the total sale consideration was to be deposited within one month from the date of issuance of allotment letter as per condition No.5 but since allotment letter was not issued, the respondent did not deposit 15% of sale consideration. Petitioner vide its -2- letter No.3777 dated 9.4.2001 informed the respondent that his allotment had been cancelled and Rs.60,400/- being 10% of the bid money deposited by him was forfeited. Aggrieved by this respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum. District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to allot the plot to the respondent and pay interest @ 18% on the amount already deposited. Being aggrieved petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission which has been dismissed by the impugned order except that rate of interest was reduced to 10% instead of 18%. Counsel for the petitioner relying upon a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in U.T. Chandigarh Administration and another vs. Amarjeet Singh and others reported in JT 2009 (4) SC 135 contends that the complaint filed by the respondent would not be maintainable as he is not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2 (I) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. We agree with the contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondent. Supreme Court in para-14 of its order observed as under: - Where there is a public auction without assuring any specific or particular amenities, and the prospective -3- purchaser/lessee participates in the auction after having an opportunity of examining the site, the bid in the auction is made keeping in view the existing situation, position and condition of the site. If all amenities are available, he would offer a higher amount. If there are no amenities, or if the site suffers from any disadvantages, he would offer a lesser amount, or may not participate in the auction. Once with open eyes, a person participates in an auction, he cannot thereafter be heard to say that he would not pay the balance of the price/premium or the stipulated interest on the delayed payment, or the ground rent, on the ground that the site suffers from certain disadvantages or on the ground that amenities are not provided. 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 complaint 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. (Emphasis supplied) -4- In this case the Supreme Court has held that an auction purchaser is not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2 (I) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the complaint filed by him would not be maintainable. Respectfully following the view taken by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case, we accept this revision, set aside the order passed by the Foras below and dismiss the complaint as barred by limitation. Respondent is put at liberty to seek redressal of his grievance by approaching any other forum alongwith an application under Section 5 read with Section 14 of the Indian Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in terms of the order passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Laxmi Engineering Works vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute (1995) 3 SCC, 583.
