Delhi Development Authority, which was the opposite party before the District Forum, has filed this revision petition against the order passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal State Commission, New Delhi in FA No.1225/2002 filed against the order of the District Forum.  By the impugned order, the State Commission has upheld the order passed by the District Forum.

-2-

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner constructed the shops and commercial units and invited applications for sale by tender.  Respondent made an application for allotment of shop No.208, 1^st Floor, LSC Block A-6, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi.  On the opening of tender, it was found that the bid of the respondent for RS.7,60,124.00 was the highest and as such, the petitioner issued allotment-cum-demand letter dated 10.5.2000.  As per the terms and conditions, the respondent had to pay the amount and submit the documents within 30 days from the date of allotment-cum-demand letter.  The respondent deposited the amount as demanded by the petitioner vide challan No.2501 dated 07.6.2000 and submitted copy of the challan alongwith the copy of documents vide his letter dated 12.6.2000.  On receipt of the documents, the respondent sent the file for verification of the payment from the Account.  Thereafter, vide letter dated 04.9.2000, the petitioner sent to the respondent, four copies of the Conveyance Deed for making the payment of stamp duty to the Collector of Stamps and getting the same stamped from the Collector of Stamps, Delhi.  Respondent submitted the Conveyance Deed after getting it duly stamped from the Collector. 

-3-

After completing the formalities, the letter of possession was issued to the respondent on 07.12.2000 wherein the respondent was asked to take possession of the site.  Respondent did not take possession of the site by pointing out certain defects.  The Conveyance Deed was executed and the possession was delivered.  In the meantime, the stamp duty charges were increased from 8% to 13%.  Respondent had to deposit Rs.38,041/-  by way of additional stamp duties with the Collector of Stamp.  Respondent requested the petitioner to refund the additional stamp duties of Rs.38,041/- which the petitioner refused to do, aggrieved against which the respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum claiming the amount incurred towards additional stamp duties along with interest @ 24% p.a.

          District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to refund the additional stamp duties of Rs.38,041/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of deposit till realization.  Rs.2000/- were awarded by way of compensation and Rs.1000/- as costs.

          Petitioner as well as the respondent filed separate appeal before the State Commission.  The appeal filed by the petitioner was

-4-

dismissed and the appeal filed by the respondent was partly accepted.  The petitioner in addition to what had been granted by the District Forum was directed to pay another sum of Rs.10,000/- for not providing the water connection.

          The complainant has accepted by the order passed by the State Commission.  This revision petition has been filed by the opposite party challenging the order of the State Commission as well as that of the District Forum.

          Counsel appearing for the petitioner relying upon a recent judgment of Supreme Court of India in “U.T. Chandigarh Administration & Anr. V/s Amarjeet Singh & Ors. (2009) 4 SCC 660 submits that the complaint filed by the respondent was not maintainable as the site had been sold to him by way of ‘Auction’ by inviting tenders.  The site was purchased by the respondent after inspecting the site on “As is Where is” basis.  We find substance made by the counsel for the petitioner.  Supreme Court in the above referred case supra in para 14 of its order has observed thus:

20.    Where there is a public auction without assuring any specific or particular amenities, and the prospective purchaser/lessee participates in the auction after having

-5-

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. 

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.

(Emphasis Supplied) 

-6-

In view of the authoritative pronouncement of Supreme Court, the complaint filed by the respondent was not maintainable before the consumer fora.  Accordingly, the revision petition is accepted.  The order passed by the fora below is set aside and the complaint is ordered to be dismissed.

            However, respondent is put at liberty to approach any other forum including the civil court for redressal of his grievance.    He is also 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 observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Laxmi Engineering Works vs. P. S. G. Industrial Institute 1995 (3) SCC 583.