Haryana Urban & Development Authority – petitioner herein – was the opposite party before the District Forum.

Complainant/respondent purchased shop No.205 in Sector 12, Part I, Karnal for Rs.8,28,000/- in open auction after depositing Rs.82,000/- being 10% of the above said bid amount.  Allotment letter was issued on 15.12.1993 when the respondent deposited Rs.1,24,200/-.  It was averred in the complaint that the site had not been fully developed with facilities like water, parking, electricity etc.                          

-2-

However, vide letter dated 14.12.1998, the site was resumed by the petitioner and 10% amount paid by the respondent/complainant was forfeited.  Respondent being aggrieved filed an appeal before the Administrator of HUDA who accepted the appeal on the condition that the respondent shall deposit 25% of the outstanding amount within one month of furnishing of the calculation sheet by the petitioner.    Being aggrieved, respondent/complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum.

District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to recalculate the entire amount keeping in mind that only simple contractual interest at the rate of 15% is payable.  Rs.1,000/- were awarded by way of costs.

Petitioner being aggrieved filed appeal before the State Commission which was dismissed by the State Commission.  Petitioner, thereafter, filed the present revision petition bearing             No.2145/2003 n this Commission which was dismissed on 07.7.2004, aggrieved against which the petitioner filed Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court of India in which the leave was granted.  The Supreme Court accepted the appeal and remanded the

-3-

case to this Commission to decide it afresh in the light of the order passed by the Commission in another case, namely, “Surinder Mohan Vs. Municipal Corporation & Anr. [III (2006) CPJ 136 (IC)].

Notice was issued to the respondent which has been received back with the postal remarks “Refused”.  The respondent would be deemed1396

 to have been served.  None has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent.  Ordered to be proceeded ex-parte.

Without going into other controversies, it may be noted that the Supreme Court of India in “U.T. Chandigarh Administration & Anr. V/s Amarjeet Singh & Ors. (2009) 4 SCC 660” has held that a complaint is not maintainable on behalf of the auction purchaser as there is no relationship of buyer or seller and does not amount to hiring of service to fall within the ambit of ‘Consumer Protection Act, 1986’.  It has been observed as under:

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 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)

          In view of the law declared by the Supreme Court in Amarjeet case (supra), this revision petition is accepted, order passed by the fora below are set aside and the complaint filed by the respondent is also ordered to be dismissed.

-5-

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.