IMPORTANT POINT
If there are no amenities or if the site suffers from any disadvantages, he/she would offer a lesser amount.

ORDER

Prem Narain, Presiding Member

This present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 10.02.2017 of the Uttar Pradesh State consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow (‘the State Commission’) in Appeal no. 501 of 2015.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/ complainant had submitted an application on 14th March 2011 for purchasing house no. A 2293 in an open auction. A MIG house no. A 2293 was allotted to the petitioner. The petitioner had deposited the full and final payment of the house and sale deed was executed and registered on 30.05.2011. The petitioner got the physical possession of the house on 06.09.2011. On 29.09.2011, when the work of boring for water and construction of boundary wall was started on the open land which was allotted by the respondent/ Housing Board, a farmer Chandika Singh got stopped the work forcibly. On enquiry it was found that there was some dispute on the possession of land and compensation for land acquisition between the respondent/ Housing Board and the farmers. On 23.12.2011, the respondent admitted that there was some dispute of possession of land and compensation with the farmers and assured that the work of development will be done soon with the help of police force. On 03.12.2013, the Executive Engineer of UP Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, Hanspuram, Kanpur had informed that there was a dispute of possession of land and compensation with the farmers and that the efforts are going on for providing basic amenities. Then the petitioner filed Complaint Case no. 527 of 2013 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kanpur (‘the District Forum’) and the District Forum allowed the complaint vide its order dated 16.01.2015 and passed the following order:

“Within three months from the date of this decision, the opposite parties will lay down electric poles with electric wires, paved road, sewerage line, pipe line for drinking water for building no. MIG A 2293, Hanspuram, Yojna no.2 of the complainant. If the opposite parties do not make available the above facilities within three months, the opposite parties shall pay @ Rs.10,000/- per month towards compensation till the above facilities are made available. The payment of compensation will start after three months of this decision”.

3. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum the opposite party preferred an appeal before the State Commission being Appeal no. 501 of 2015. The State Commission allowed the appeal on the ground that an auction purchaser was not a consumer in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of U T Chandigarh Administration and Another vs Amarjeet Singh and Ors – (2009) 4 SCC 660: (2009) 2 CPR 97 : (2009) 2 Supreme 650.

4. Hence, the present revision petition.

5. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the plot in question was purchased by the petitioner/ complainant in an auction from the UP Awas Evam Vikash Parishad. However, no facilities were provided for undertaking the construction on the plot. Moreover there was a dispute with the farmers who were not satisfied with the compensation provided for acquisition of their lands and therefore, the farmers did not allow the construction on the plot. The petitioner requested the OP to create the basic facilities for the plot like road, electricity and other such facilities, however, the OP did not give any heed to these requests.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the complainant was kept in the dark while auctioning the plot and it was never disclosed to the complainant that the basic amenities and facilities will never be provided by the opposite party and that there was a dispute going on with the local farmers. It may be true that an auction purchaser may not be considered a consumer, but if correct information is not provided to the auction purchaser then this is a case of adopting unfair trade practice an