IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Maximum Amount – The maximum amount which they can forfeit towards security amount is Rs.1,54,507/- only – their action of forfeiting the entire amount of Rs.6,54,507/- is not correct.
(2) Security amount – Petitioner herein defaulted in making the balance payments as per the required schedule, based on the demands raised by the respondent Corporation, the Respondent Corporation is entitled to forfeit the security amount only.

ORDER

The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioner against Respondent as detailed above, under section 21 (b) of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the order dated 30.10.2018 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Chhattisgarh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeal (FA) No. 730 of 2018 in which order dated 26.06.2018 of Rajnandgaon District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Consumer Complaint (CC) no.228 of 2017 was challenged, inter alia praying for setting aside the order dated 30.10.2018 of the State Commission.

2. While the Revision Petitioner (hereinafter also referred to as Complainant) was Appellant before the State Commission and Complainant before the District Forum, the Respondent (hereinafter also referred to as OP) was Respondent before the State Commission and OP before the District Forum.

3. Notice was issued to the Respondent on 09.09.2019. Petitioner filed Written Arguments/Synopsis on 04.08.2023. On account of absence despite notice, Respondent was proceeded ex parte vide order dated 25.01.2024.

4. Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Forum and other case records are that in an auction, the complainant stood highest bidder for the purchase of Shop No.G-5. Accordingly, the complainant was successful bidder. She deposited Rs.1,54,507/- as security amount and thereafter on 14.08.2014 she deposited a sum of Rs.5.00 lacs as premium in compliance of the terms and conditions. It is alleged by the complainant that as per the terms and conditions of the OP, within 30 days from the sanction of appropriate authority, as the Complainant had not deposited the remaining cost of the shop i.e. Rs.13,45,493/-, the entire amount deposited was forfeited. The complainant wrote many letters including letter dated 08.09.2015 through which the Complainant asked for return of money deposited by her. Further, on account of condition of shop, situation and other connected circumstances, non installation of electricity and other insufficient service, the complainant gave proposal to the OP for return of her money as she did not want to purchase the said shop, but despite the letter dated 08.09.2015, the Municipal Corporation illegally forfeited the entire amount, though the sanction of the appropriate authority was granted vide order dated 17.07.2015 but according to the complainant, the same was communicated to her after more than one year, which shows that OP was avoiding to provide appropriate services. Further, the 30 days limitation as per terms of Municipal Corporation is not covered. At the most, Municipal Corporation could have forfeited the security amount but for Rs.5.00 lacs deposited as premium, the same should have been returned to her as she had already tendered her request for return of money as she was not interested in purchasing the said shop. Being aggrieved, the Complainant filed CC before the District Forum and District Forum vide order dated 26.06.2018 dismissed the complaint of the Complainant. Being aggrieved, the Complainant preferred an Appeal before the State Commission which was also dismissed. Hence, the Petitioner is before this Commission now in the present RP.

5. The appeal was dismissed by the State Commission primarily on account of maintainability, the complainant not being a consumer under Section 2(1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act. The main issue to be considered in the present case is with respect to the maintainability, whether the complainant is a consumer under Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act. The shop in question has been bought by the complainant in auction. The complainant contends that it was not for commercial purpose but for her livelihood. It is further contended that the auction was not on ‘as is where is’ basis but respondent Municipal Corporation was obligated to provide certain faciliti