1.      Heard Mr. Madhurendra Kumar, Advocate for the complainant. and Ms. Deepati Gupta, Advocate for the opposite parties.

2.      The above complaint has been filed for directing (i) the opposite party to refund the amount of Rs.17900000/- with compound interest @ 18%; (ii) to pay Rs.2000000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment; (iii) to pay Rs.1000000/- as cost of litigation; (iv) and any other relief which is deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

3.      The fact as stated by the complainant and emerged from the documents are that Delhi State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. advertised for auction for a commercial plot situated at Sector-3, Bawana Industrial Complex, Delhi in the year 2006. The complainant deposited the required amount of Rs.17900000/- and deposited in the auction which was held on 30.10.2006. The bid of the complainant for Rs.71600000/- has been accepted by the opposite party vide letter dated 13.11.2006.  The opposite party asked the complainant to deposit the balance amount within 90 days.  The complainant moved an application for extension of the period on 29.01.2007 which was accepted vide letter dated 10.02.2007 and a period of three months was extended for deposit of balance amount and interest on it.  However, the complainant could not deposit the balance amount even extended period.  The opposite party by letter dated 25.10.2007 cancelled the allotment and forfeited the earnest money deposited by the complainant and again moved an application dated 09.08.2007 for extension of 45 days, but the complainant could not deposit the amount and moved an applications dated 23.08.2008, 11.12.2015 and 16.12.2016 for cancelling the allotment and refund of initial amount deposited by him for refund of their earnest money.  The opposite party vide letter dated 20.04.2008 informs that the earnest money has been forfeited in terms of the auction and could not be refunded.  Then this complaint was filed on 15.12.2017 for refund of earnest money and other consequential relief.

4.      The opposite party filed its written reply on 29.04.2019 raising the maintainability of the complaint.  The opposite party stated that the plot in dispute was a commercial plot of 1000 sq.mt. and its auction was on the basis of “as it were it”.  It was not linked with any service, as such, the complainant was not a consumer and the complaint is not maintainable.

5.      We have considered the arguments of counsel for the parties. The word “consumer” has been defined under Section 2 (1) (d) and word “service” has been defined under Section 2 (1) (o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) which are quoted below:-

Section-2 (1) (d).- “consumer” mean any person who,-

(i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such use is made with approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for re