ORDER

Petitioner purchased a shop-cum-office site in an open auction on 10.4.2001 for Rs.45,80,000/-. 25% of the auction money was deposited on the spot. Remaining amount was to be paid in 4 equal instalments along with interest. On inspection, the petitioner found that there was a heavy- duty electricity transformer installed at the backside of the allotted SCO. Petitioner requested the respondent to remove the transformer and for delivery of possession. Legal Notice was issued on

20.3.2003. Since no relief was given, the petitioner filed the complaint on 6.2.2006.

Respondent, on being served, filed its written statement. The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the respondent to treat the date of delivery of possession as on 22.8.2007 and quashed the demand of Rs.12,93,125/- raised by the respondent towards penalty-cum- construction charges, etc. because possession had not been delivered till 22.8.2007. It was ordered that penal interest, if any, could be charged from the respondent after 22.8.2007.

Respondent, being aggrieved, filed the appeal before the State Commission, which has been allowed. State Commission has set aside the order of the District Forum on the ground that the complaint was barred by limitation. The shop-cum-office was purchased by the petitioner on 10.4.2001 and the complaint was filed in the year 2006 which was clearly barred by time. Petitioner could file the complaint within 2 years of the arising of the cause of action. State Commission has relied upon 3 judgements of the Supreme Court to the effect that consumer forum cannot entertain a time-barred complaint. State Commission non-suited the petitioner also on the ground that the petitioner was not a consumer, as he had purchased the shop in an open auction. State Commission relied upon the judgement in U.T. Chandigarh Administration & Anr. V/s Amarjeet Singh & Ors. - (2009) 4 SCC 660. In para 14 of the said judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that a complaint is not maintainable on behalf of the auction purchaser as there is no relationship of buyer or seller and does not amount to hiring of service to fall within the ambit of ‘Consumer Protection Act, 1986’. It has been observed as under:

“20. 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.

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

We agree with the view taken by the State Commission. Since the petitioner had purchased the shop-cum-office in open auction, he will not be a consumer within Section 2(1)(d)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Amarjeet Singh’s case (supra). Dismissed.

......................J ASHOK BHAN PRESIDENT ..................