By this common order, these appeals are being disposed of since common question of facts and law are involved. 2. In these appeals there is challenge to orders dated 4.7.2006 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (for short as tate Commission vide which consumer complaints filed by the respondents/complainants were allowed. 3. Brief facts are that respondents are private limited companies. Appellant gave an advertisement in the Newspaper for auction of various plots of land for the purpose of construction of shops/offices and assured to complete the building within two years. At the time of auction, officials of the appellant categorically mentioned that plots were fully developed and all facilities were available. Respondents made payment within time and perpetual lease deed was also executed. Respondents gave the highest bid which bid was more than three times the rate of land in the fully developed residential plot. Respondents constructed the building and obtained the completion certificate from the Building Department of the appellant. 4. It is further stated that there was no sewerage lines, no water connection lines and no regular main electricity lines nor had the area yet been electrified by the appellant nor passages was available to approach the plot freely. The buildings, which was completed could not be used for months together. Respondents at their own efforts could get electricity connection from DESU, which was a temporary connection for building purpose. 5. Since, respondents have not been able to derive necessary benefits out of the building and would have got much higher prices than for which they have sold certain portions and also a higher price for the portion which remains unsold and even if at all those were to be rented, respondents could have easily got a tenant at a sufficiently higher rate. The property remained idle for many months for non-availability of electricity, water and sewerage. 6. Through these complaints respondents have sought compensation Rs.15 lakhs/Rs.16.5 lakh respectively alongwith interest @ 18% and Rs.25,000/- towards cost of litigation. 7. Appellant in its reply has alleged that respondents are not consumers as they purchased this plot for resale and this is a commercial transaction. Respondents are big builders working for gain by sale and purchase of properties by constructing them for sale and is not a consumer. Further, the land was completely developed and facilities like electricity, water, telephone lines and sewerage etc. which are controlled by other authorities, who are not under the appellant, were still made available in spite of the fact that the plots were auctioned on s is where is basis 8. Appellant further stated that electricity and water are controlled by DESU and D.J.B. and the site condition was seen by the bidders before giving their bids. No loss has ever been suffered by the builders and if any, the appellant is not responsible for business loss. 9. State Commission vide impugned orders allowed the complaints observing as under; . After according careful consideration to the allegation of the complainant verging on deficiency in service on the part of the OP as well as the pleas raised by the OP that the plot was auctioned on s is where is basis we find that whenever plot was auctioned may be for any purpose residential or commercial, the authority auctioning the plot has to provide sewer line, water lines, electricity lines as well as passage to approach the plot and also to make roads, it appears that due to lack of these facilities the complainant suffered loss as he completed the plot in January, 1995 but could not put to use for two months due to lack of aforesaid facilities. 9. Complaint is allowed to the aforesaid extent. 10. Aggrieved by the impugned order, appellant filed these appeals. Alongwith these appeals, applications for condonation of delay have also been filed. 11. On 25.4.2012, learned counsel for the appellant advanced his arguments, whereas learned counsel for respondents sought time to argue the matter. Accordingly, matter was adjourned to 1.5.2012 for final hearing. On 1.5.2012, learned counsel for the respondents sought time to take instructions from his clients and as such matter was adjourned to 9.5.2012 for final hearing. On 9.5.2012, none appeared on behalf of the respondents, therefore, matter was adjourned to 24.5.2012. On that date, again none appeared on behalf of the respondents and as such, respondents were proceeded ex parte. Arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant, have been heard. 12. Since there is delay of only nine days, for the reasons mentioned in the applications, the delay is condoned and applications for condonation of delay stands allowed. 13. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that complainants in these cases are builders and they purchased the plots in question by way of auction. The plots were auctioned for the purpose of construction of shops/offices. Thus, complainants have purchased these plots for the purpose of commercial activities. Admittedly, after completion they had let out the same for commercial purpose. Under these circumstances, complaints filed under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short as ct are not maintainable. It is further contended that plots were auctioned on the basis of s is where is basis It is well settled that auction purchaser does not come under the definition of onsumeras defined under the Act. 14. In support of its contentions, learned counsel for appellant has relied upon the following judgements; i) Laxmi Engineering Works vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute (1995) 3 Supreme Court Cases 583; ii) Cheema Engineering Services vs. Rajan Singh (1997) 1 Supreme Court Cases 131; iii) Ashok Tayal and another vs. Delhi Development Authority and others II(1995) CPJ 3 (NC) and iv) U.T. Chandigarh Administration and others vs. Amarjeet Singh and others, 2009 CTJ 486 (Supreme Court) (CP) 15. As per averments made in their complaints, respondents are private limited companies and they had purchased commercial plots in auction for the purpose of construction of shops/offices. As per terms and conditions of the allotment by auction of perpetual lease hold right in commercial plots, it has been clearly mentioned; he plot is being auctioned on s is where is basis 16. In Laxmi Engineering Works (supra), Honle Supreme Court has held; hether the purpose for which a person has bought goods is a ommercial purposewithin the meaning of the definition of expression onsumerin Section 2(d) of the Act is always a question of fact to be decided in the facts and circumstances of each case. 17. In Cheema Engineering Services (supra), Honle Supreme Court observed; he question, therefore, is whether the respondent has been using the aforesaid machine for self-employment? The work elf- employmentis not defined. Therefore, it is a matter of evidence. Unless there is evidence and on consideration thereof it is concluded that the machine was used only for self-employment to earn his livelihood without a sense of commercial purpose by employing on regular basis the employee or workmen for trade in the manufacture and sale of bricks, it would be for self-employment. Manufacture and sale of bricks in a commercial way may also be to earn livelihood, but erely earning livelihood in commercial business does not mean that it is not for commercial purpose. Self-employment connotes altogether a different concept, namely, he alone uses the machinery purchased for the purpose of manufacture by employing himself in working out or producing the goods for earning his livelihood eincludes the members of his family. Whether the respondent is using the machine exclusively by himself and the members of his family for workmen and if so, how many, are matters of evidence. The burden is on the respondent to prove them. Therefore, the Tribunals were not right in concluding that the respondent is using the machine only for self-employment and that, therefore, it is not a commercial purpose. The orders of all the Tribunals stand set aside. The matter is remitted to the District Forum. The District Forum is directed to record the evidence of the parties and dispose of it in accordance with law within a period of six months from the date of the receipt of this order. 18. In Ashok Tayal (supra), full bench of this Commission held; e are of the opinion that as the complainants have purchased the plot in dispute in an auction sale where there is no element of hiring of service and this transaction will not fall under the Consumer Protection Act. Therefore, this complaint cannot be entertained by this Commission. It is an outright sale of immovable commercial property in a public auction and therefore, the complaint is not maintainable. 19. In U.T. Chandigarh Administration (supra), Apex Court has laid down that; here there is a public auction without assuring any specific or particular amenities, and the prospective 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 ormed, the purchaser/lessee is not a consumer, the owner is not a raderor ervice providerand 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 20. Thus, looking from any angle, we have no hesitation in holding that the respondents do not fall under the definition of onsumeras defined under the Act, since plots were purchased by them in the auction on the basis of s is where is basis Thus, provisions of the Act, are not applicable to these cases. State Commission was not at all justified in entertaining the complaints of the respondents. 21. Accordingly, we accept these appeals and set aside the impugned orders passed by the State Commission. Consequently, both the complaints filed by the respondents stand dismissed. 22. Parties shall bear their own costs.