IMPORTANT POINT
An auction purchaser does not come under purview of ‘consumer’ as defined in Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Prem Narain, Presiding Member—This revision petition has been filed by petitioner, Mrs.P. Puri, against the order dated 16.01.2012 of the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, (in short ‘the State Commission’).

2. Brief case of the complainant is that the complainant was allotted a plot for double storey shop and basement measuring 5.5 x 13.75 meters vide letter of allotment no.9059 dated 05.07.1999 by the OP No.2/Respondent No.2. The said plot is situated as plot No.3, Sector 4, Mansa Devi Complex, Panchkula. The total tentative price of the plot was assessed at Rs.12,10,000/-.

3. There was an electric poll on the plot and that is why its possession could not be taken. As the pole was not removed inspite of various requests made by the complainant, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Panchkula, Haryana, (in short ‘the District Forum’) praying for the following reliefs:-

“a) Direct the opposite parties to remove the electricity pole and deliver vacant physical possession of the plot in question.

b) Direct the opposite parties to pay interest @ 18% per annum (simple) on the various amounts deposited by the complainant, from their respective dates of deposit till the delivery of the vacant physical possession of the plot in question.

c) Direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- as escalation in the cost of construction.

d) Direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- for unnecessary harassment, mental tension and agony.

e) Direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.11,000/- as cost of litigation.”

4. In the written statement reply filed by the opposite parties the following main points were raised:-

That the allotment of the site was made in the year 1999 and possession was delivered on 16/8/99. The present complaint has been filed on 21.7.2003. Hence the present complaint is badly time barred and is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.

That the complainant purchased DSS in open auction. It has held by Hon’ble National Commission that a person who purchases the plot in open auction does not fall under the definition of consumer under the consumer Protection Act.

That the site is a commercial site and it does not fall under the Consumer Protection Act. The said site was purchased in open auction for commercial purpose which is an out right sale. Thus the complainant is not the consumer under the Consumer Protection Act and as held by Hon’ble National Commission 1995 (3) CPJ-3.

5. The District Forum vide its order dated 25.11.2004 passed the following orders:-

“a) To offer vacant physical possession of the plot after removing the underground electric cable afresh and

b) refund whole of the interest whatever charged after supplying a complete statement of account to the complainant

c) And also pay a sum of Rs.1000/- as costs of proceedings.

Let the order be complied with within a period of one month from the date of communication of this order.”

6. Aggrieved with the above order of the District Forum, the opposite parties/respondents as well as the complainant both preferred appeals before the State Commission. The State Commission vide impugned dated 16.01.2012 passed the following order setting aside the order of the District Forum and dismissing the complaint:-

“As a sequel to our aforesaid discussions, it has been established on the record that the complaint filed by the complaint is barred by limitation and also that the complainant does not fall within the definition of ‘consumer’ as she had purchased the DSS site in an ‘open auction’ for commercial purpose, without there being any assurance on behalf of the opposite parties for developing the site. District Consumer Forum has failed to appreciate all these aspects and erred in allowing the complaint. Hence, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

Accordingly, appeal No.639/2005 filed by HUDA is accepted, impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed. Conse