Father of the Complainant/petitioner Shri Tirath Singh had purchased plot measuring 200 sq. yards i.e. remaining part of the disputed plot bearing property No.925/23 in an open Auction on 22.1.1979 by the Respondents.  After the realization of the entire sale price warrant of possession was issued on 07.06.1982 in favour of Tirath Singh.  Afterwards it was realized that the said plot had already been sold to one Smt. Santosh Kumari who had already constructed a pucca house on the said plot.  The Chief Settlement Commissioner directed the Tehsidar(Sales)/OP-2  to return the consideration amount of Rs. 2000/- to the LRs of deceased Tirath Singh who had by that time died.  Petitioners filed a complaint seeking the allotment of a plot.

          District Forum in its order dated 19.6.2003 allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to refund the deposited amount of Rs.2,000/- along with interest @ 12% and compensation of                      Rs.2 Lacs. 

          Respondents, being aggrieved, filed an appeal before the State Commission which has been allowed by the impugned order.  Order of the District Forum has been set aside and the complaint has been ordered to be dismissed.

          Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in UT Chandigarh Administration & Ors. Vs. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. - (2009) 4 SCC 660 has held that an auction-purchaser is not a consumer within the definition of the word ‘consumer’ as defined in Section 2(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  It was observed in para 20 and 21 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.”

          Admittedly, in the present case, Tirath Singh, father of the petitioner had purchased the plot in question in an open Auction.  In view of the judgment of Supreme Court in Amarjeet Singh’s case (supra) petitioner is not a Consumer within the meaning of Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

In view of the above, the revision petition and the complaint are ordered to be dismissed.

Petitioner is put at liberty to approach any other forum for redressal of his grievances along with an application under Section 5 r/w Section 14 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of delay for the period spent before the consumer fora in terms of the order passed by the Supreme Court in “Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. PSG Industrial Institute – (1995) 3 SCC 583”. 

Revision petition stands disposed of accordingly.