The court confirmed auction purchasers cannot be classified as consumers under the Consumer Protection Act, affecting the jurisdiction of consumer forums.

1. This revision petition under S.19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the ˜Act') assails the order dated 2.2.2017 in First Appeal No. 238 of 2013 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal, Delhi (in short, the ˜State Commission') which dismissed the appeal against order dated 30.7.2007 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, New Delhi (in short, the ˜District Forum') in Consumer Complaint No. 254/2005 that had allowed the complaint filed by the respondent.

2. I have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record carefully.

3. According to the petitioner the facts of the case are that it published an advertisement notifying sale by auction of residential plot No. C - 78, Sardulganj scheme, Bikaner admeasuring 5974 sq. ft on 27.4.1970. Respondent's father made the highest bid of Rs. 11,960 which was accepted by the petitioner. Respondent deposited 25% of the bid amount of Rs. 2,990 as part payment of the total sale consideration amount of Rs. 11,960. On 9.12.1970 petitioner informed the respondent that a ˜stay' order had been issued by the Court qua the plot auctioned in his favour and that once this order was vacated, he would be informed by way of demand notice to deposit the balance consideration amount. On 9.3.1971 a demand notice was sent by the petitioner to the respondent to pay the balance amount along with the lease amount totaling to Rs. 9004.30 within one month from the date of receipt and that failure to do so would amount to automatic cancellation of the auction including forfeiting the amount paid. As the respondent failed to deposit the balance amount, on 17.7.1971 petitioner cancelled the allotment and the respondent's father was informed of the cancellation when he visited the office of the petitioner. A letter dated 23.8.1971 was sent by respondent's father for return of the amount deposited which was Rs. 2990. On 29.10.1982 respondent's father Ratan Lal expired. A Will was executed by respondent and an Agreement to Sell was executed between the respondent and other legal heirs of late Ratan Lal. However, the plot in question had been sold to one Satyendra Kumar through auction by petitioner on 26.5.1998. The respondent therefore, does not have any title qua the property in question.

4. In view of copy of decision dated 3.7.2003 a Compromise Committee was setup by petitioner wherein it was held that complaint of the respondent was time barred since more than 33 years had passed from the date of auction. The matter was transferred to the State Government on 3.7.2003. On 15.10.2005 the decision of the Compromise Committee was reiterated by the petitioner.

5. Aggrieved by the said orders, respondent filed Consumer Complaint No. 254/2005 before the District Forum on 14.9.2005 alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner and praying for allotment of plot No. B - 44 in place of plot No. C - 78 with compensation of Rs. 20,000. The District Forum upheld the complaint and directed the petitioner to allot an alternate plot of the same size as was previously allotted within 3 months and pay Rs. 1,000 as compensation. The order of the District Forum dated 30.7.2007 reads as follows:

(i) That any other plot of the size of plot No. C - 78 of Sardulganj, Bikaner in the said colony be provided to the complainant at the rate of 27.4.1970 and if the plot of the same size is not available in the said colony, then any other plot o