This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Haryana Urban Development Authority, against the order dated 13.7.2017 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, (in short ‘the State Commission’) passed in First Appeal No.218 of 2016. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant/respondent is an allottee in SCO No.96 in Sector 2, Faridabad vide allotment letter dated 10.2.2011. The adjoining SCO No.95 was also purchased by the complainant from the other allottee. Complainant paid 45% amount of the cost of said SCO to the opposite party/petitioner. The possession was offered by the opposite party/petitioner vide letter dated 04.03.2011 however, the complainant could not take the possession of the same because of lack of the basic structure like parking pavement garden etc. which were not provided by the opposite party and the opposite party used the space in front of the booths to put wheat bags there. Consequently, it was not possible for the complainant to start his business activity in the SCOs and he suffered loss. 3. Aggrieved, the respondent/complainant filed a consumer complaint bearing No.42/2013 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad, (in short ‘the District Forum’). The District Forum allowed the complaint vide order dated 20.1.2016 as under:- “Resultantly, the complaint is allowed. Opposite parties are directed, jointly and severally, to remove wheat bags lying in front of SCO no.95-96, Sector-2, Faridabad and to make provision of electricity to enable electric connection to said SCO as well as to pay Rs.2,50,000/- on account of loss of business besides Rs.20000/- for mental tension, agony and harassment in addition to Rs.5500/- towards litigation expenses to the complainant within 30 (thirty) days from the date of receipt of this order. It is further directed that opposite parties shall not charge interest from the complainant on instalments of SCOs in question from the date of offer of possession till today.” 4. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the petitioner/opposite party preferred an appeal bearing No.218 of 2016 before the State Commission and the State Commission vide its order dated 13.07.2017 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the District Forum. 5. Hence the present revision petition. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at the admission stage. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the wheat bags were kept before the allotted shop/booth under the order of the District Magistrate of the District and the petitioner had no control over those wheat bags. It was further stated that the District Forum has also passed order in respect of the electric connection to be facilitated to the petitioner, whereas the electric connection is to be obtained by the complainant directly from the service provider and petitioner has no role in providing the electricity connection. Petitioner is only required to develop infrastructure, which has already been developed. Both the fora below have erred in not appreciating these aspects. 7. Learned counsel stated that one booth was purchased in auction by the complainant as highest bidder and the booth was purchased for commercial purpose, therefore, the respondent is not a consumer within the definition of ‘Consumer’ as given in Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant has also purchased adjoining booth from the other allottee for commercial purpose. Therefore, the fora below have erred in allowing the complaint of the complainant treating him to be a consumer whereas, nothing has been pleaded in the complaint that the complainant purchased these booths for earning his livelihood by means of self-employment. As each booth costed Rs.26,00,000/-, the complainant must have spent about Rs.52,00,000/- in purchasing these two booths. Thus, the complainant could not have purchased the booths if he was not earning his livelihood from other sources of income. Hence, these SCOs were not purchased for earning complainant’s livelihood from self- employment through these booths. 8. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have examined the material on record. First of all, the petitioner has admitted that wheat bags were kept there. The complainant has suffered loss by not taking the possession of these booths because he may not have been able to do his business properly because of the wheat bags kept in front of the booths. Obviously, when the petitioner issued offer of possession, they should have insured that the place was free of wheat bags and to this extent the negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner/opposite party is proved. 9. So far as the electric connection is concerned, clearly electric connection is to be obtained by the complainant and the petitioner cannot be held responsible. Petitioner has to provide only the infrastructure for carrying of electricity in the area and then complainant has to take electric connection from the service provider. The order of the District Forum only reflects this intent. 10. Both the fora below have given concurrent finding of facts clearly observing the deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner and the scope under the revision petition is quite limited against the concurrent finding of facts as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta vs. United India Insurance Company, 2011 (3) Scale 654, wherein the following has been observed:- “Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21 (b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view that what was taken by the two Forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken, by setting aside the concurrent finding of two fora.” 11. So far as the question of complainant being a consumer is concerned, it is seen that the booths have been purchased for starting some business activities in these booths by the complainant. In respect of any property the ‘commercial purpose’ will be attracted only when the purchaser is involved in the regular trading of such properties for earning profit. This Commission in Aashish Oberai Vs. Emaar MGF Land Limited, Consumer Case No. 70 of 2015, decided on 14.09.2016, held as follows:- “In the case of the purchase of the houses which a builder undertakes to construct for the buyer, the purchase can be said to be for a commercial purpose where it is shown, by producing evidence, that the buyer is engaged in the business of a buying and selling of houses and or plots as a trading activity, with a view to make profits by sale of such houses or plots. ……………” 12. This Commission, in Rajesh Malhotra & Ors. Vs. Acron Developers & 2 Ors., First Appeal No. 1287 of 2014, decided on 05.11.2015 has held as follows:- “12. Therefore, in order to determine whether the goods are purchased for commercial purpose, the basic pre-requisite would be whether the subject goods have been purchased or the services availed of with the prime motive of trading or business activity in them, for the purpose of making profit, which, as held in Laxmi Engineering (supra) is always a question of fact to be decided in the facts and circumstances of each case”. 13. From the above judgments of this Commission, it is clear that even if some business activity is taken up in these booths, the complainant would not be deprived of his right as a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, qua the seller of these booths. 14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Paramount Digital Color Lab & Ors. etc., Vs. Afga India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. etc. III (2018) CPJ 12 (SC) has held the following:- “13. Thus, in our considered opinion, each case ought to be judged based on the peculiar facts and circumstance of that case. Whether the assistance of someone is required to handle the machine, is a question of fact and necessity? Ultimately, if it is purely for a “commercial purpose” and not for “self-employment”, the complainant may not get the benefit of the Explanation to Section 2 (1)(d) of the Act. The buyers of the goods or commodities for “self-consumption” in economic activities in which they are engaged would be “consumers” as defined in the Act. Furthermore, there is nothing on record to show that the appellants wanted to use the machine in question for purposes other than “self-employment”. Therefore, the point to be considered is whether the appellants have purchased the machine in question for “commercial purpose” or exclusively for the purposes of earning their livelihood by means of “self-employment”. There cannot be any dispute that the initial burden is on the appellants to prove that they fall within the definition of “consumer”. It is pertinent to mention that respondent No. 4, who is a contesting party, did not choose to file a counter affidavit before the State Commission. In other words, he did not deny any of the claims made by the appellants. None of the parties have led their evidence. Based on the material on record before the State Commission, it proceeded to decide on merits. As the litigation is being fought since 2006 in different Forums, we do not wish to remand the matter, particularly, when there is sufficient material available on record for arriving at the conclusion.” 15. It is seen that the petitioner/opposite party has not raised the issue of complainant not being a consumer on account of purchasing these booths for commercial purpose in their written statement. Therefore, this issue has not been dealt with by the fora below. In the present case also, there is nothing to show that the complainant purchased these booths for purpose other than “self-employment”. Hence, in the light of decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Paramount Digital Color Lab & Ors. etc., Vs. Afga India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. etc. (supra), the respondent complainant would be covered under the definition of the “Consumer”. 16. Another argument of the learned counsel has been that the property was purchased in auction and therefore, the complainant is not a consumer. This issue has been considered by the District Forum and it has been rightly decided that if auction takes place on “as is where is” basis, then the auction purchaser cannot challenge in a consumer complaint any shortcoming in the purchased property. Hence, the complainant has not alleged any shortcoming in the booth per se, rather the complainant is aggrieved by the non-usability of the booths due to wheat bags kept in front of these booths. In the present case auction notice has been perused and it does not mention that wheat bags are lying in front of the booths, therefore, argument of the learned counsel is not valid in the present case. 17. Based on the above discussion, I do not find any illegality material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order dated 13.07.2017 passed by the State Commission, which calls for any interference from this Commission. Consequently, the Revision Petition No. 460 of 2018 is dismissed at the admission stage. | 
