Haryana Urban Development Authority, which was opposite party before the District Forum, has filed the present revision petition.

          Briefly stated, the facts are that the complainant had purchased plot No.165 from the original allottee Smt. Savitri Devi for a consideration of Rs.1,05,000/- vide Sale Agreement dated 13.11.1995 and deposited a sum of Rs.500/- as Transfer Fee with the

-2-

petitioner for transferring the said plot in her name.  Petitioner reallotted the said plot in favour of the complainant on 29.11.1995 on the same terms and conditions as mentioned in the original letter of allotment dated 25.2.1997.  Petitioner failed to deliver the possession of the allotted plot within the reasonable period.  Petitioner vide its letter dated 18.6.1997 offered to allot alternative plot to the complainant as original plot could not be offered to her because the same was required to widen the road which was accepted by the complainant and possession of the alternative plot was delivered to her on 05.8.1997.  A complaint was filed by the complainant alleging that she wanted to open a Chemist Shop the use of which was denied to her resulting in loss of income.

          District Forum vide its order dated 20.1.2000 allowed the complaint, operative part of which reads as under:

          “For the foregoing reasons I accept this complaint and direct the OP No.1 to pay the interest at the total deposited of the complainant at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of its respective deposits after deducting a period of 3 years from the date of allotment till 5.8.97, the date of delivery of possession of the alternative plot,           within one month of passing this order, failing which the

-3-

complainant shall be at its liberty to seek his Redressal under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  It is further directed to refund a sum of Rs.26302/- excess amount recovered along with interest at the aforesaid rate w.e.f. 11.2.94 till actual payment.  The complainant is further awarded Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for escalation in cost of construction and Rs.2000/- towards the litigation cost and harassment physical as well as mental, to be paid by OP No.1 in the aforesaid stipulated period.  File be consigned to the record after due compliance.”

          Being aggrieved, both the parties preferred separate appeals before the State Commission which vide separate orders of even date, i.e. 03.9.2004, partly allowed the appeal filed by the complainant and dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner.

          It is admitted fact before us that the plot was sold to the original allotee by way of Auction being the highest bidder.  Hon’ble Supreme Court 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 in the auction sale relationship is of buyer and seller and same does not amount to hiring

-4-

of service to fall within the ambit of ‘Consumer Protection Act, 1986’.  It has been observed as under:

14.    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.  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

-5-

or decide any complaint by the auction purchaser/lessee against the owner holding the auction of sites.

(Emphasis Supplied)

                    In view of this, revision petition has to be accepted.  We accept the revision petition and set aside the orders passed by the foras below.  It is held that the complaint filed by the complainant was not maintainable as he stepped into the shoes of the Auction purchaser of the plot.  Respondent would be at liberty to seek remedy in other forum as per law.